State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al v. Peter J. Hanson, P.C. et al

Filing 89

ORDER re defendants' 67 Motion to Seal, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

_______________________________________
)
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
)
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
PETER J. HANSON, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

Case No. C16-1085RSL

ORDER REGARDING MOTION
TO SEAL

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on “Defendants’ Motion to File Certain Exhibits

16

Under Seal.” Dkt. # 67. Having reviewed the memoranda and exhibits submitted by the parties,

17

the Court finds that the medical records and information regarding the non-party patients whose

18

treatment is at issue in this litigation should remain confidential to protect the privacy of those

19

patients. In addition, plaintiffs have shown that certain claims handling documents are entitled to

20

protection from public viewing because they contain unique information, were developed and

21

maintained in confidence at substantial cost, and would put plaintiffs at a competitive

22

disadvantage if disclosed.

23

Docket # 70 shall remain under seal. The public, however, has a significant interest in the

24

opinions and analysis of the experts in this litigation in that they are important to an

25

understanding if the issues and the Court’s resolution thereof. A balance between the private and

26

public interests can be achieved by redacting all patient names and other personal identifying
information from Exhibits E, F, G, and H (Dkt. # 70-3 through # 70-6) and filing redacted copies
ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO SEAL

1

of those exhibits in the record. Defendants shall do so within fourteen days of the date of this

2

Order. Defendants shall also file for public view the portions of Exhibit C (Dkt. # 70-1) that

3

plaintiffs agree are not confidential, namely SF0000104PROD, SF0000080PROD, and

4

SF0000081PROD.1

5
6

Dated this 13th day of November, 2017.

7

A

8

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1

25
26

LCR 5(g)(1) requires parties to meet and confer regarding whether a designating party will
withdraw the confidential designation or will agree to redactions so that a seal is not necessary.
Defendants’ email notice to plaintiffs that they intended to file a thousand pages of documents within a
few hours and would like plaintiffs’ input on the confidentiality designations is not a meaningful attempt
to explore alternatives to filing the documents under seal.
ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO SEAL

-2-