Allstate Insurance Company et al v. Balle et al

Filing 439

ORDER Granting 437 Plantiffs' Motion to Seal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 436 Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal is DENIED as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 2/20/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

vs.

14

PETER MARIO BALLE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:10-cv-02205-APG-NJK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
MOTION TO SEAL
(Docket No. 338)

16
Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ emergency motions to seal, Docket Nos. 436 and 437.
17
The motions appear to be identical to one another with the exception that Docket No. 436 is not signed.
18
Accordingly, Docket No. 437 supersedes Docket No. 436, and Docket No. 436 is hereby DENIED as
19
moot.
20
In the remaining motion to seal, Docket No. 437, Plaintiffs seek to file under seal their
21
emergency motion to enforce settlement. See Docket No. 438 (sealed emergency motion to enforce
22
settlement). Pursuant to the procedure outlined in Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
23
1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006), Plaintiffs submitted a memorandum of points and authorities in support of
24
the motion to seal. Docket No. 437. For the reasons discussed below, the Court hereby GRANTS the
25
motion to seal.
26
...
27
...
28

1

I.

STANDARD

2

The Ninth Circuit has held that there is a strong presumption of public access to judicial records.

3

See Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Foltz v. State Farm

4

Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to file documents under seal

5

bears the burden of overcoming that presumption. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678

6

(9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). Parties “who seek to maintain the secrecy of

7

documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that ‘compelling

8

reasons’ support secrecy.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180.1 Those compelling reasons must outweigh the

9

competing interests of the public in having access to the judicial records and understanding the judicial

10

process. Id. at 1178-79; see also Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679 & n.6 (court must weigh “relevant factors,”

11

including the public’s interest in understanding the judicial process). Further, to the extent any

12

confidential information can be easily redacted while leaving meaningful information available to the

13

public, the Court must order that redacted versions be filed rather than sealing entire documents. Foltz,

14

331 F.3d at 1137; see also Vaccine Ctr. LLC v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 68298, *9-

15

10 (D. Nev. May 14, 2013) (discussing redaction requirement).

16

II.

ANALYSIS

17

The information at issue in the pending motion to seal includes the specific terms of settlement

18

discussions as well as several versions of the settlement agreement itself. Docket No. 438. The Court

19

has reviewed Plaintiffs’ motion as well as each of the exhibits attached thereto and concludes that they

20

all contain confidential settlement information which is traditionally kept secret for policy reasons and

21

which warrants keeping them sealed. Further, the Court finds that both good cause and compelling

22

reasons exist to seal this information that overcome the presumption of public access and that the

23

documents cannot be easily redacted while leaving meaningful information available to the public.

24
25
26
27
28

1

Kamakana and Foltz involve non-parties’ attempts to obtain sealed court documents. The same
analysis and standards apply to a party’s motion to seal. See Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679 n.5; see also
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182 n.9 (for the case before it, noting that “[t]he effective bottom line is that
the district court was determining whether documents should be sealed”).
2

1

III.

CONCLUSION

2

For good cause shown,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to seal, Docket No. 437, is GRANTED.

4

Plaintiffs’ emergency motion to enforce settlement, Docket No. 438, will remain under seal.

5
6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to seal, Docket No. 436, is DENIED as
moot.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

DATED: February 20, 2014.

10
11
12

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3