Jantos v. Prudential Life Insurance Company of America

Filing 83

ORDER granting Defendant's 71 Motion to Seal; granting Plaintiff's 76 Motion to Seal signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (TH)

1
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

LAURA D. JANTOS,
Plaintiff,

11
v.

CASE NO. C15-1530 RAJ

ORDER

12
13

THE PRUDENTIAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA.

14
Defendant.

15
16

This matter comes before the Court on Prudential’s Unopposed Motion to Seal

17

(Dkt. # 71) and Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal (Dkt. # 76). Neither party has

18

responded to the other’s motion. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS both

19

motions. Dkt. ## 71, 76.

20

“There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” Western

21

District of Washington Local Civil Rule (“LCR”) 5(g). Parties must “explore all

22

alternatives before filing a document under seal.” LCR 5(g)(1). Under this Court’s local

23

rules, parties may file a document under seal only if a statute, rule, of prior court order

24

expressly authorizes, or if the motion to seal a document is filed before or at the same

25

time the parties file the sealed document. LCR 5(g)(2). Additionally, a motion to seal,
“even if it is a stipulated motion, must include” both of the following:

ORDER - 1

1
2
3
4
5
6

(A) a certification that the party has met and conferred with all other parties in an attempt
to reach agreement on the need to file the document under seal, to minimize the amount
of material filed under seal, and to explore redaction and other alternatives to filing under
seal; this certification must list the date, manner, and participants of the conference;
(B) a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a
document under seal, including an explanation of:
i. the legitimate private or public interests that warrant the relief sought;
ii. the injury that will result if the relief sought is not granted; and
iii. why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not sufficient.

7

LCR 5(g)(3). Moreover, “[e]vidence support from declarations must be provided where

8

necessary.” Id.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

1. Prudential’s Unopposed Motion to Seal (Dkt. # 71)
On August 9, 2018, this Court denied without prejudice the parties’ stipulated
request to file the entire administrative record under seal (Dkt. # 60), but granted
Plaintiff’s request (Dkt. # 61) to file certain medical and proprietary business information
under seal. Dkt. # 70. Prudential now moves to file its Opposition (Dkt. # 73) to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment under seal. Dkt. # 71. Prudential argues that
the information at issue is the same sort of sensitive proprietary business information the
Court already determined in its previous Order should be maintained under seal. Id. at 2-

16

3. Prudential has filed the unredacted version of its Opposition under seal, and provided
17
18
19

the Court with a redacted copy for the public record. Dkt. ## 72, 73. Prudential also
states that it has met and conferred with Plaintiff on the material to be filed under seal.
Dkt. # 71 at 3.

20

The Court has reviewed Prudential’s Opposition, and finds that it contains

21

proprietary business information the Court has already determined is appropriately kept

22

under seal. The Court also finds Prudential’s proposed redactions reasonable and that

23

Prudential has minimized that amount of information to be shielded from public view.

24

Accordingly, Prudential’s Unopposed Motion to Seal is GRANTED. Dkt. # 71.

25

ORDER - 2

1
2

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal (Dkt. # 76)
Plaintiff seeks to file Exhibit S to the Supplemental Declaration of Megan E. Glor

3

in Opposition to Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment under seal. Dkt. #

4

71. Plaintiff has filed the unredacted version of this document under seal. Dkt. # 77.

5

Plaintiff also states that she has met and conferred with Prudential on the material to be

6

filed under seal. Dkt. # 76 at 2.

7
8
9

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that this document contains the type of proprietary
business information the Court already determined is properly kept under seal. Although
Plaintiff did not provide a redacted copy of this one-page document, the Court finds that
any attempted redaction of the limited information contained within the document would

10

be wasteful, as it would essentially require redaction of the entire document.
11
12
13
14
15

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s filings, and finds that there are compelling
reasons to keep this proprietary business information under seal. Accordingly, the Court
finds that Exhibit S is properly kept under seal, and also finds that Plaintiff has
minimized that amount of information to be shielded from public view. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal is GRANTED. Dkt. # 76.

16
17

Dated this 15th day of November, 2018.

18

A

19
20

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25

ORDER - 3