Anderson v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America

Filing 14

ORDER granting parties' 11 Joint Motion to Seal Administrative Record. The Clerk is DIRECTED to maintain the administrative record under seal during the pendency of this case. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

DAVID ALAN ANDERSON,

10

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

11
12

CASE NO. C17-0659-JCC

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA,

13
Defendant.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ joint motion to seal the administrative

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

record (Dkt. No. 11). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ motion, and after conducting an
in camera review of the administrative record, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion for the
reasons explained herein.

I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brings this case under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974

(“ERISA”), alleging Defendant wrongfully terminated his long-term disability benefits. (Dkt.
No. 1.) The parties previously stipulated that no discovery will be conducted and that the case
will be decided on the administrative record. (Dkt. No. 9.) The parties filed a stipulated motion to
file and maintain the administrative record under seal, asserting that it contains sensitive medical
information regarding Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 11.) The Court ordered the parties to submit a copy of

ORDER
C17-0659-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

the administrative record so that it could conduct an in camera review to determine whether the

2

request to seal was overly broad. (Dkt. No. 12.) The administrative record contains just over

3

5000 documents and some surveillance video footage.

4

II.

5

DISCUSSION
In general, there is a strong presumption for public access to court files. See Kamakana v.

6

City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006); W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R.

7

5(g). A party seeking to seal a document attached to a dispositive motion must provide

8

compelling reasons “that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring

9

disclosure . . . .” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. While courts have recognized that the need to

10

protect a party’s medical privacy is a compelling reason to seal, the decision to seal must be

11

made on a document-by-document basis. See Karpenski v. Am. Gen. Life Companies, LLC, No.

12

C12-1569-RSM, slip op. at 2 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 9, 2013) (ruling that some but not all of the

13

documents containing protected medical information should be maintained under seal).

14

The parties assert that there is a compelling reason to seal because the administrative

15

record contains “extensive private medical records and discussion of Mr. Anderson’s private

16

medical information.” (Dkt. No. 11 at 2.) In addition, the parties request the Court to seal the

17

entire administrative record “since redaction is not a reasonably feasible alternative due to the

18

high volume of medical records and medical information contained throughout the record.” (Id.)

19

After reviewing the administrative record, the Court concludes that the parties have

20

provided a compelling reason to seal. The record contains hundreds of documents that discuss, in

21

detail, Plaintiff’s medical conditions, treatment history, and prescription medications. Plaintiff’s

22

interest in keeping that information confidential outweighs the public’s interest in access. See

23

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

24

The thornier issue is whether the entire administrative record should be sealed. The Court

25

notes that approximately 2000 documents—or about 40 percent of the entire record—either

26

reference Plaintiff’s personal medical information or discuss it in detail. While some of the
ORDER
C17-0659-JCC
PAGE - 2

1

documents containing this information could be individually sealed, many of these references are

2

interspersed within documents and would require detailed redactions. Requiring such redactions

3

would be particularly burdensome for the parties because references to Plaintiff’s medical

4

condition are diffused across documents—as an example, many of the insurance claims

5

manager’s notes contain short discussions of the Plaintiff’s medical condition surrounded by

6

information that is not confidential. The Court also notes that if it required this type of large-

7

scale redaction, the remaining record would be much more difficult to understand and

8

correspondingly less valuable to the general public. Based on its in camera review, the Court

9

agrees with the parties that it is not reasonably feasible to redact the record. The parties have

10

provided compelling reasons to seal the entire administrative record in this case.

11

III. CONCLUSION

12

For the foregoing reasons, the parties’ motion to seal (Dkt. No. 11) is GRANTED. The

13

parties may file the administrative record under seal. The Clerk is DIRECTED to maintain the

14

administrative record under seal during the pendency of this case.

15

DATED this 12th day of February 2018.

A

16
17
18

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
C17-0659-JCC
PAGE - 3