Krause v. Nevada Mutual Insurance Company et al

Filing 246

ORDER Denying 215 , 217 , 222 , and 226 Motions to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 4/28/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
12

SANDRA K. KRAUSE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
NEVADA MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:12-cv-00342-JCM-CWH
ORDER

13
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motions to Seal (#215) and (#217), both filed
14
November 6, 2014; Plaintiff’s Responses (#224) and (#225), filed November 24, 2014; and
15
Defendants’ Replies (#228) and (#229), filed December 4, 2014. It is also before the Court on
16
Defendants’ Motions to Seal (#222) and (#226); Plaintiff’s Response (#230); and Defendants’ Reply
17
(#231).
18
Each of the motions under consideration seeks to seal the same information: (1) excerpts
19
from the deposition transcript of Patricia Schaffran, and (2) excerpts from the deposition transcript
20
of Andrew O’Brien. The information, however, is attached to several different filings. Defendants’
21
motion (#215) seeks to seal the referenced information that is attached as exhibits 3 and 4 to their
22
opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. Defendants’ motion (#217) seeks to
23
seal excepts from the Schaffran deposition that are attached as an exhibit to Plaintiff’s motion to
24
strike. Defendants’ motions (#222) and (#226) seek to seal the referenced information insofar as it
25
is attached to their oppositions to Plaintiff’s written objections. The motions at issue here are
26
identical in their reasoning offered in support of the requested relief.
27
As previously noted, this case has been pending for almost three years and includes litigation
28
in a separate case – Krause v. Nevada Mutual Insurance Co, 2:13-cv-00976-APG-CWH. During

1

this time, the Court has entered several orders detailing the requirements for sealing, including the

2

different standards for sealing information attached to a non-dispositive discovery motion and a

3

dispositive motion. The Court has reviewed the various motions and finds that each seeks to seal

4

information that is attached or related to a dispositive motion. Defendants’ motion (#215) expressly

5

seeks to seal information attached to briefing on a pending dispositive motion. Defendants’ motion

6

(#217) seeks to seal information attached to Plaintiff’s motion to strike certain evidence submitted

7

in support of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Because the underlying motion to strike

8

is dispositive in the sense that it seeks to strike information used in support of a summary judgment

9

motion, the Court considers the motions to seal (#215) and (#217) as dispositive. The same is true

10

for motions (#222) and (#226), which seek to seal information attached to briefing challenging

11

information submitted in support of dispositive motions. As such, the Court will review each of the

12

motions to seal under the standards for sealing information on dispositive motions.

13

As previously noted, “[i]t is well-established that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the

14

absence of a court order to the contrary, presumptively public.” San Jose Mercury News v. United

15

States District Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). The Ninth Circuit comprehensively

16

examined the presumption of public access to judicial files and records in Kamakana v. City and

17

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). The court recognized that different interests

18

are at stake in preserving the secrecy of materials produced during discovery and materials attached

19

to dispositive motions. Kamakana reiterated that a protective order issued under the Rule 26(c) may

20

be issued once a particularized showing of good cause exists for preserving the secrecy of discovery

21

materials. “Rule 26(c) gives the district court much flexibility in balancing and protecting the

22

interests of private parties.” 447 F.3d at 1180. Thus, a “good cause” showing is sufficient to seal

23

documents produced in discovery. Id.

24

Kamakana also held that a showing of “compelling reasons” is needed to support the secrecy

25

of documents attached to dispositive motions. A showing of “good cause” does not, without more,

26

satisfy the “compelling reasons” test required to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to

27

dispositive motions. Id. The court found that:

28

Different interests are at stake with the right of access than with
2

1
2
3
4
5

Rule 26(c); with the former, the private interests of the litigants are
not the only weights on the scale. Unlike private materials unearthed
during discovery, judicial records are public documents almost by
definition, and the public is entitled to access by default. (Citation
omitted). This fact sharply tips the balance in favor of production
when a document formally sealed for good cause under Rule 26(c)
becomes part of the judicial record. Thus, a “good cause” showing
alone will not suffice to fulfill the “compelling reasons” standard that
a party must meet to rebut the presumption of access to dispositive
pleadings and attachments.

6
Id. Kamakana recognized that “compelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public’s interests in
7
disclosure and justify sealing records exist when court records may be used to gratify private spite,
8
permit public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets. Id. at 1179 (internal
9
quotations omitted). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a
10
litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more,
11
compel the court to seal its records.” Id. (citation omitted). To justify sealing documents attached
12
to dispositive motions, a party is required to present articulable facts identifying the interests
13
favoring continuing secrecy and show that these specific interests overcome the presumption of
14
public access by outweighing the public’s interests in understanding the judicial process. Id. at 1181
15
(internal citations and quotations omitted).
16
Defendants have not met their burden to articulate compelling reasons to keep the
17
information at issue sealed. The fact that there is a protective order entered to facilitate discovery
18
does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard for sealing. The Court does not find compelling
19
the notion that this information was previously sealed, as it was sealed due to non-opposition and
20
these motions are opposed. Lastly, the present case is distinguished from the Triquint
21
Semiconductor, Inc. v. Avago Technologies, Ltd., 2011 WL 5190264 (D. Ariz.). In Triquint, a
22
patent infringement action, the moving party sought to seal certain information, including “small,
23
specific portions” of the personnel records of non-party employees. The party in Triquint also made
24
effort to redact portions of the records as well. Unlike in Triquint, the information Defendants seek
25
to seal is not tangential to the claims, but is highly relevant to the discrimination claims raised in
26
this matter. Moreover, Defendants have not made any effort to target sealing through redaction or
27
limitation to small, specific portions of the records in questions, choosing instead to request that it
28
3

1

all be sealed. The Court is not inclined to seal information in a blanket manner when legitimate

2

attempts at redaction could have resolved the concerns. Thus, having identified no compelling

3

reasons in support of the motions to seal, the Court concludes that Defendants’ motions should be

4

denied.

5

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing,

6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Seal (#215) is denied.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Seal (#217) is denied.

8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Seal (#222) is denied.

9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Seal (#226) is denied.

10

DATED: April 28, 2015.

11
12
13

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4