Allstate Insurance Company et al v. Belsky et al

Filing 69

ORDER granting ECF No. 61 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal; directing Clerk to seal exhibits 1-F and 1-G of ECF No. 60 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 8/31/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
MARJORIE BELSKY, MD, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
_______________________________________ )

Case No. 2:15-cv-02265-MMD-CWH

ORDER

Presently before the court is Defendants’ motion (ECF No. 61) for leave to file under seal,
filed on July 29, 2016. Plaintiffs have not filed a response.
Defendants represent that two documents submitted to the court contain sensitive information

13

and should be sealed. Specifically, Defendants request that the court seal exhibits 1-F and 1-G in

14

their appendix (ECF No. 60) supporting their response (ECF No. 58) to Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No.

15

53) to dismiss. Defendants represent that exhibit 1-F contains confidential medical information of a

16

non-party, and that exhibit 1-G contains financial information pertaining to Plaintiff Allstate

17

Insurance Company.

18

For most judicial records, a motion to seal is considered under a “compelling reasons”

19

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

20

(holding that “[a] party seeking to seal a judicial record ... bears the burden of ... meeting the

21

‘compelling reasons' standard”). This standard derives from the common law right “to inspect and

22

copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana, 447

23

F.3d at 1178 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). To limit this common law right of

24

access, a party seeking to seal judicial records must show that “compelling reasons supported by

25

specific factual findings ... outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring

26

disclosure.” Id. at 1178–79 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Pintos v. Pac.

27

Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2010).

28

Here, Defendants represent that the exhibits to their appendix (ECF No. 60) contain a non-

1

party’s medical records, and financial records of an opposing party. Upon review, the court agrees

2

that the respective parties’ privacy interests outweigh the general presumption of public disclosure of

3

court documents.

4
5

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ motion (ECF No. 61) for leave to file
under seal is GRANTED. The Clerk must SEAL exhibits 1-F and 1-G of ECF No. 60.

6
7

DATED: August 31, 2016.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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