LIBERTY INTERNATIONAL UNDERWRITERS CANADA v. SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY et al

Filing 335

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 272 Consolidated Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider on 6/12/18. (dd, )

Case 1:12-cv-04934-NLH-JS Document 335 Filed 06/12/18 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 14225

[Doc. No. 272]
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
LIBERTY INTERNATIONAL
UNDERWRITERS, CANADA,

:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE
:
COMPANY, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
______________________________:

Civil No. 12-4934 (NLH/JS)

O R D E R
This matter is before the Court on the “Consolidated Motion
to Seal” (“motion”) [Doc. No. 272] filed by plaintiff Liberty
International
Scottsdale

Underwriters

Insurance

Canada

Company

and

(“plaintiff”).
Infinity

Defendants

Access,

LLC

(collectively, “defendants”) do not oppose this motion. The Court
exercises

its

discretion

to

decide

the

motion

without

oral

argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L. Civ. R. 78.1. For the following
reasons, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
The parties seek to redact and seal the following:
•

Exhibits 21, 26 and 39 to Scottsdale’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 215-3, 215-5 and 215-6]

•

Exhibits I, K and L to defendants’ Motion to Strike
[Doc. No. 220-2, 220-3 and 220-4]
1

Case 1:12-cv-04934-NLH-JS Document 335 Filed 06/12/18 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 14226

•

Exhibits 20, 27 and 46 to plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Doc. No. 222, 222-1 and 222-2]

•

Exhibits 18, 23, 24 and 25 to Infinity Access’ Motion
for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 259-3, 259-6 and 259-7]

•

Exhibits P and W to plaintiff’s Opposition to Infinity
Access’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 268-1
and 268-2]1

The motion will be granted as to Doc. Nos. 215-3, 215-5, 2156, 220-2, 220-3, 220-4, 222, 222-2, 259-3, 259-6, 259-7 and 2681. The motion will be denied as to the remaining documents [Doc
Nos. 222-1 and 268-2].
It is well-established there is “a common law public right of
access to judicial proceedings and records.” In re Cendant Corp.,
260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). When a party
files a motion to seal it must demonstrate that “good cause” exists
for protection of the material at issue.

Securimetrics, Inc. v.

Iridian Techs., Inc., C.A. No. 03-4394 (RBK), 2006 WL 827889, at
*2 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2006). Good cause exists when a party makes “a
particularized

showing

that

disclosure

will

cause

a

‘clearly

defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure.’” Id.

The parties have also agreed to unseal the following
exhibits previously filed under temporary seal: Exhibits 12, 13
and 23 to Scottsdale’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. Nos. 2151, 215-2 and 215-4] and Exhibits 11, 12 and 20 to Infinity Access’
Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. Nos. 259-1, 259-2 and 259-4].
1

2

Case 1:12-cv-04934-NLH-JS Document 335 Filed 06/12/18 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 14227

(citing Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786 (3d Cir.
1994)).
The applicable requirements to seal documents are set forth
in L. Civ. R. 5.3(c), which requires that a motion to seal
describe: (a) the nature of the materials or proceedings at issue;
(b) the legitimate private or public interest which warrants the
relief sought; (c) the clearly defined and serious injury that
would result if the relief sought is not granted; and (d) why a
less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not available.
L. Civ. R. 5.3(c)(3).
Here, the motion is properly supported by the “Declaration of
Stephen A. Loney, Jr.” and an attached index. [Doc. No. 272-1].
The parties contend some of the information they seek to seal
constitutes “privileged attorney-client communications.” See Mot.
at 4. The parties further aver that the information “reveals
competitively

sensitive

internal

practices

and

methods

for

evaluating and handling insurance claims.” Id. at 6.
The Court has reviewed the subject materials in detail to
decide this motion and finds that the parties have failed to meet
their burden under L. Civ. R. 5.3 and the applicable case law as
to Doc. Nos. 222-1 and 268-2. This is so because there is a less
restrictive alternative available to the relief sought. “A motion
to seal is overbroad where the moving party’s interests ‘can be
adequately served by filing a more narrowly tailored’ motion to
3

Case 1:12-cv-04934-NLH-JS Document 335 Filed 06/12/18 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 14228

seal.” In re Benicar (Olmesarten) Prods. Liab. Litig., C.A. No.
15-2606 (RBK/JS), 2016 WL 266353, at *70-71 (D.N.J. Jan. 21, 2016)
(citing

Bock

v.

Pressler

&

Pressler,

LLP,

C.A.

No.

11-7593

(KM/MCA), 2014 WL 1233039, at *3(D.N.J. Mar. 25, 2014)). The Court
finds there is a less restrictive alternative available as to the
documents in the form of more narrowly tailored redactions. See In
re: Benicar, 2016 WL 266353, at *4. (“[W]here a less restrictive
alternative exists . . . a motion to seal will fail.”). For
example, the parties seek to seal the entirety of Doc. Nos. 222-1
and 268-2. One of the documents included is a safety manual given
to

Infinity

Access

employees.

The

manual

contains

general

information regarding workplace safety that does not divulge any
sensitive business information. While the Court recognizes there
could be a legitimate private interest in keeping portions of the
documents sealed, redacting the entirety of the documents is not
necessary to protect the confidential information. Accordingly,
more narrowly tailored redactions are available. Because there is
a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought, the motion
will be denied as to Doc. Nos. 222-1 and 268-2.
As to the remaining documents [Doc. Nos. Doc. Nos. 215-3,
215-5, 215-6, 220-2, 220-3, 220-4, 222, 222-2, 259-3, 259-6, 2597 and 268-1], the Court agrees with the parties and finds if the
subject materials are made public, the parties could be harmed by
4

Case 1:12-cv-04934-NLH-JS Document 335 Filed 06/12/18 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 14229

way of competitive disadvantage in the marketplace and injury to
their business interests.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 12th day of June, 2018, that the
“Consolidated Motion to Seal” [Doc. No. 272] is GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part; and it is further
ORDERED that the “Consolidated Motion to Seal” [Doc. No. 272]
is GRANTED as to Doc. Nos. 215-3, 215-5, 215-6, 220-2, 220-3, 2204, 222, 222-2, 259-3, 259-6, 259-7 and 268-1; and it is further
ORDERED that the “Consolidated Motion to Seal” [Doc. No. 272]
is DENIED without prejudice as to Doc. Nos. 222-1 and 268-2; and
it is further
ORDERED that the parties are granted leave to refile a motion
to seal pursuant to L. Civ. R. 5.3(c), as amended, as to Doc. Nos.
222-1 and 268-2 by June 26, 2018. If the Motion is not timely
filed, the Clerk of the Court is directed to unseal the subject
materials; and it is further
ORDERED that to the extent not already done, the Clerk of the
Court shall unseal Doc. Nos. 215-1, 215-2, 215-4, 259-1, 259-2 and
259-4.
/s/ Joel Schneider
JOEL SCHNEIDER
United States Magistrate Judge

5