Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Arch Insurance Company et al

Filing 162

ORDER granting defendants' 102 Motion to Seal Exhibits in Support of Arch's Motion for Summary Judgment, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(SWT)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION as Receiver for Washington
Mutual Bank,
No. C14-545RSL
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

v.
ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
SUBMIT EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL
AND REQUEST FOR
INSTRUCTIONS ON REDACTION
OF EXHIBITS

15
16

This matter comes before the Court on the defendants’ “Motion to Submit Exhibits Under

17

Seal in Support of Arch’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and Request for Instructions on

18

Redaction of Exhibits.” Dkt. # 102. Having reviewed the parties’ briefing, declarations,

19

exhibits, and the remainder of the record, the Court finds as follows.

20

In this case, plaintiff Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Washington

21

Mutual Bank (“FDIC-R”), sues various insurance companies for refusing to cover certain losses

22

under fidelity bond insurance policies held by Washington Mutual Bank (“WaMu”). FDIC-R

23

alleges that WaMu suffered these losses as a result of a criminal mortgage fraud scheme

24

perpetrated on WaMu by two of its lenders. In support of its motion for summary judgment,

25

Dkt. # 97, defendant Arch Insurance Company (“Arch”) has filed a number of exhibits under

26

seal, as those documents have been designated “confidential” by FDIC-R under the terms of the

27
28

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO SEAL AND REQUEST FOR INSTRUCTIONS - 1

1

stipulated protective order entered by this Court. Dkt. # 58. Defendants seek an order

2

permitting those documents to be submitted under seal per Local Civil Rule 5(g)(2)(B), as well

3

as instructions from the Court regarding the extent of redactions necessary so that those

4

documents may be filed in an unsealed, redacted form. Defendants have conferred with FDIC-R

5

on this issue and have agreed to redact the information specified in Local Civil Rule 5.2(a).

6

FDIC-R responds that defendants should be required to redact additional material, namely all

7

Personally Identifiable Information protected from disclosure by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C.

8

§ 552a(b). Dkt. # 132. Defendants argue that nearly all of this information has already been

9

disclosed in other legal proceedings and accordingly that redaction in this case is unnecessary.

10

This is a public court and its business should be conducted publicly unless there is a

11

specific reason to keep materials or testimony confidential. As stated in Local Civil Rule 5(g),

12

“[t]here is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” Accordingly, the Court

13

will grant the relief specifically requested in defendant’s motion and order defendants to redact

14

the information listed in Local Civil Rule 5.2(a). If FDIC-R would like an order requiring

15

redaction of additional material, it may file a motion requesting – and providing sufficient

16

justification for – that relief.

17
18

For all of the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to submit exhibits under seal and

19

request for instructions (Dkt. # 102) is GRANTED as follows. The documents already filed

20

under seal shall remain sealed. Defendants shall file unsealed versions of those documents

21

within thirty days of the date of this order, redacting all information specified in Local Civil

22

Rule 5.2(a). All other documents filed in this case going forward shall also be redacted as

23

described above.

24

SO ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 2017.
25

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

26
27
28

A

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO SEAL AND REQUEST FOR INSTRUCTIONS - 2