Clark v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
ORDER granting 135 defendant's Motion to Seal 136 SEALED MOTION Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's Motion to Have Certain Portions of Pleadings Redacted Prior to Publicly Filing, for Certain Documents to Remain Under Seal and for Removal of Certain Documents. See order re specifics. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 3/16/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SL)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, JAMIE CLARK, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA *** ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Before the court is defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's ("MetLife") motion for leave to file under seal a motion to redact portions of certain pleadings (Doc. #136) filed on March 10, 2010. Doc. #135. MetLife requests leave pursuant to the stipulated protective order regarding confidentiality of discovery material which provides that any party that wishes to file or submit as part of the court record any material subject to the protective order must first file a motion for leave to file such materials under seal with the court. Doc. #65. MetLife argues that its motion refers to materials deemed and designated as confidential. As an initial matter, the court is acutely cognizant of the presumption in favor of public access to papers filed in the district court. See Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995). Therefore, a party seeking to file materials under seal bears the burden of overcoming that presumption by showing that the materials are covered by an operative protective order and are also
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
deserving of confidentiality. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2005). Specifically, a party must "articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure." Kamakana, City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted). Here, MetLife has put forth compelling reasons for sealing the requested documents. MetLife has sufficiently alleged that the proposed motion refers to materials that bring attention to MetLife's confidential internal business deliberations, organization, and capabilities. See e.g., Microsystems Inc. v. Network Appliance, 2009 WL 5125817, *9, No. C-08-01641-EDL (N.D. Cal 2009) (finding good cause to seal documents that contain confidential business information which could cause harm to the parties if publicly disclosed). Accordingly, MetLife's motion for leave shall be granted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's motion for leave to file under seal (Doc. #135) is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 16th day of March, 2010.
__________________________________ LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?