Olberg et al v. Allstate Insurance Company

Filing 130

ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 103 Motion to Seal. The Clerk is DIRECTED to maintain under seal Docket Numbers 106 and 107 -1 through 107 -28. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour. (LH)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

JEFF OLBERG, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

ORDER

v.

11
12

CASE NO. C18-0573-JCC

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et
al.,

13
Defendants.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to seal Plaintiff’s motion for

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

class certification and supporting documents (Dkt. No. 103). Having thoroughly considered the
briefing and the relevant record, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion for the reasons explained
herein.
Consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, Local Civil Rule 5(g), and the
protective orders entered in this matter (Dkt. Nos. 32, 83), Plaintiff filed a redacted version of its
motion for class certification (Dkt. No. 104) and a sealed unredacted version of the motion (Dkt.
No. 106); a sealed declaration from John M. DeStefano with associated exhibits (Dkt. Nos. 107,
107-1–107-22); a sealed declaration from Larry Hausman-Cohen (Dkt. No. 107-23); sealed
expert reports by David Schwickerath, Lance Kaufman, William Berglund, and Darrell Harber
with associated exhibits (Dkt. Nos. 107-24–27); and a sealed declaration from Elizabeth Gibson

ORDER
C18-0573-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

with associated exhibits (Dkt. No. 107-28). The redacted and sealed information contained in

2

these documents has been designated by Defendants’ counsel as confidential and/or highly

3

confidential-attorney’s eyes only pursuant to the previously entered protective orders in this case.

4

(Dkt. Nos. 103 at 2, 110 at 2–4; see Dkt. Nos. 32, 83.) Defendants assert the documents contain

5

proprietary information that could be used by competitors against Defendants if made publicly

6

available. (Dkt. Nos. 103 at 2–4, 110 at 4–6.)

7

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records

8

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of

9

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

10

U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). That right is reduced when applied to confidential and proprietary

11

business records. Id. at 1179; see In re Electronic Arts, 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008).

12

This is particularly true for records attached to nondispositive motions. In re Midland Nat. Life

13

Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2012).

14

The motion at issue is a class certification motion (Dkt. No. 104). While courts may

15

consider the merits of a party’s underlying claim in ruling on such motions, the primary

16

consideration for the Court is whether the class device is appropriate. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.

17

Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 348–49 (2011). This Court considers the class certification motion here to

18

be nondispositive. On this basis, it applies the “good cause” standard articulated in Federal Rule

19

of Civil Procedure 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. Therefore, only a “particularized

20

showing” of harm from disclosure is required. Id.

21

The Court has reviewed the records at issue and concluded that a showing of harm has

22

been made in the instant matter. Disclosure of the sensitive information included in the records

23

would cause irreparable harm to Defendants because it would provide Defendants’ competitors

24

information about how it conducts its business.

25
26

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to seal (Dkt. No. 103) is GRANTED. The
Clerk is DIRECTED to maintain under seal Docket Numbers 106 and 107-1 through 107-28.
ORDER
C18-0573-JCC
PAGE - 2

1

DATED this 31st day of March 2021.

A

2
3
4

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
C18-0573-JCC
PAGE - 3