Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Arch Insurance Company et al
ORDER granting defendants' 102 Motion to Seal Exhibits in Support of Arch's Motion for Summary Judgment, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(SWT)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION as Receiver for Washington
ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
SUBMIT EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL
AND REQUEST FOR
INSTRUCTIONS ON REDACTION
This matter comes before the Court on the defendants’ “Motion to Submit Exhibits Under
Seal in Support of Arch’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and Request for Instructions on
Redaction of Exhibits.” Dkt. # 102. Having reviewed the parties’ briefing, declarations,
exhibits, and the remainder of the record, the Court finds as follows.
In this case, plaintiff Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Washington
Mutual Bank (“FDIC-R”), sues various insurance companies for refusing to cover certain losses
under fidelity bond insurance policies held by Washington Mutual Bank (“WaMu”). FDIC-R
alleges that WaMu suffered these losses as a result of a criminal mortgage fraud scheme
perpetrated on WaMu by two of its lenders. In support of its motion for summary judgment,
Dkt. # 97, defendant Arch Insurance Company (“Arch”) has filed a number of exhibits under
seal, as those documents have been designated “confidential” by FDIC-R under the terms of the
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO SEAL AND REQUEST FOR INSTRUCTIONS - 1
stipulated protective order entered by this Court. Dkt. # 58. Defendants seek an order
permitting those documents to be submitted under seal per Local Civil Rule 5(g)(2)(B), as well
as instructions from the Court regarding the extent of redactions necessary so that those
documents may be filed in an unsealed, redacted form. Defendants have conferred with FDIC-R
on this issue and have agreed to redact the information specified in Local Civil Rule 5.2(a).
FDIC-R responds that defendants should be required to redact additional material, namely all
Personally Identifiable Information protected from disclosure by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C.
§ 552a(b). Dkt. # 132. Defendants argue that nearly all of this information has already been
disclosed in other legal proceedings and accordingly that redaction in this case is unnecessary.
This is a public court and its business should be conducted publicly unless there is a
specific reason to keep materials or testimony confidential. As stated in Local Civil Rule 5(g),
“[t]here is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” Accordingly, the Court
will grant the relief specifically requested in defendant’s motion and order defendants to redact
the information listed in Local Civil Rule 5.2(a). If FDIC-R would like an order requiring
redaction of additional material, it may file a motion requesting – and providing sufficient
justification for – that relief.
For all of the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to submit exhibits under seal and
request for instructions (Dkt. # 102) is GRANTED as follows. The documents already filed
under seal shall remain sealed. Defendants shall file unsealed versions of those documents
within thirty days of the date of this order, redacting all information specified in Local Civil
Rule 5.2(a). All other documents filed in this case going forward shall also be redacted as
SO ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 2017.
Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO SEAL AND REQUEST FOR INSTRUCTIONS - 2
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?