Davis v. Symetra Life Insurance Company

Filing 93

ORDER on Motions to Seal. The Court GRANTS Davis's motion to seal (Dkt. No. 60 ) and GRANTS Symetra's motion to seal (Dkt. No. 83 ). Signed by District Judge Kymberly K. Evanson. (SB)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

DENNIS E. DAVIS,
v.

CASE NO. C21-0533-KKE
Plaintiff,

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL

SYMETRA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendants.

13

This matter comes before the Court on two unopposed motions to seal. The first motion

14

(Dkt. No. 60) was filed by Plaintiff Dennis E. Davis and concerns Davis’s motion for class

15

certification, documents, and information filed in support of the motion, and the declaration of

16

Scott J. Witt in support of the same. Id. The second motion (Dkt. No. 83) was filed by Defendant

17

Symetra Life Insurance Company (“Symetra”) and concerns documents and information filed in

18

support of Symetra’s opposition to Davis’s motion for class certification (Dkt. No. 67), and

19

Symetra’s motion to exclude the opinion of expert Scott J. Witt (Dkt. No. 81). For the reasons set

20

forth below, the Court grants both motions.

21

I.

FACTS

22

On April 11, 2022, the Court entered a stipulated protective order, which defined as

23

confidential material “any confidential research, development, trade secret, or commercial

24

information, or any other personal information of any Party or a Party’s customer, provided that
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL - 1

1

the Party or third-party has made efforts to maintain confidentiality that are reasonable under the

2

circumstances[.]” Dkt. No. 43 at 2. The parties agree the documents that they ask the Court to

3

seal are subject to the protective order. See Dkt. No. 60 at 3, Dkt. No. 87 at 2, Dkt. No. 83 at 2.

4

II. LEGAL STANDARD

5

“There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” Local Rules W.D.

6

Wash. LCR 5(g); see also Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.

7

2003). For most judicial records, a party seeking to seal “bears the burden of overcoming this

8

strong presumption by meeting the compelling reasons standard. That is, the party must articulate

9

compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of

10

access and the public policies favoring disclosure[.]” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447

11

F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up) (emphasis added). If the court decides to seal

12

certain records, “it must ‘base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis

13

for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.’” Id. (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser,

14

49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)).

15

A compelling reason to seal court records may exist when they could become “a vehicle

16

for improper purposes,” such as being used to release trade secrets. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179

17

(quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). Compelling reasons may

18

also exist “if sealing is required to prevent judicial documents from being used as sources of

19

business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” See Microsoft Corp. v.

20

Motorola, Inc., No. C10-1823JLR, 2012 WL 5476846, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 12, 2012) (cleaned

21

up).

22

Under the local rules of this District, a party filing a motion to seal is required to provide

23

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

24

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL - 2

1
2
3
4
5
6

relief sought is not granted; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to the relief
sought is not sufficient.
LCR 5(g)(3)(B).

When, as here, parties have entered a stipulated protective order

governing the exchange in discovery of documents that a party deems confidential, “a party
wishing to file a confidential document it obtained from another party in discovery may
file a motion to seal but need not satisfy subpart (3)(B)[]. Instead, the party who designated
the document confidential must satisfy subpart (3)(B).” LCR 5(g)(3)(B).

7
III. DAVIS’S MOTION TO SEAL

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Davis filed a motion to seal certain documents on December 19, 2023 (Dkt. No. 60), and
subsequently re-noted the motion for March 1, 2024 (Dkt. No. 69). Davis requests the Court seal
the Witt declaration (Dkt. No. 63), along with exhibits 3 and 39–52 attached thereto, and the
unredacted version of Plaintiff’s motion for class certification (Dkt. No. 67). Dkt. No. 60.
Symetra supports Davis’s motion. Dkt. No. 87 at 2. Referring to exhibits attached to the
Witt declaration (Dkt. No. 63), Symetra asks the Court “to maintain portions of exhibits 3, 39, 40,
and 52, and the entirety of exhibits 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, and 51, under seal.” Id.
at 10–11. Symetra also requests that the Court “maintain the existing redactions in [Davis]’s
motion for class certification and the Witt Report, which contain information derived from these
sealed exhibits.” Id.
Symetra places the documents to be sealed into two general categories: “Symetra’s internal
actuarial and pricing information” (Dkt. No. 87 at 8) and “Symetra’s confidential marketing
materials” (id. at 9). As to the first category, consisting of portions of exhibit 3, 39–47, 51, and 52
attached to the Witt declaration, Symetra explains that maintaining these documents under seal is
critical to its private business interests, and that competitors could use the information in these
documents to harm Symetra’s business interests, including by using the information “to reverse

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL - 3

1

engineer Symetra’s pricing practices[.]” Id. at 8. Symetra also demonstrates that it has “explored

2

all reasonable alternatives to filing a document under seal and that less restrictive alternatives are

3

insufficient to protect the confidential information at issue.” Id. at 10. The Court finds Symetra

4

has met the requirements of Local Civil Rule 5(g)(3)(B) and has shown compelling reasons support

5

the sealing of these documents because the public release of this information would put Symetra

6

at a competitive disadvantage.

7

As to the second category of documents, Symetra states “[e]xhibits 48, 49, and 50 [attached

8

to the Witt declaration] are brochures containing Symetra’s confidential marketing and advertising

9

materials that address Symetra’s proprietary COI rate information.” Dkt. No. 87 at 9. Symetra

10

argues these documents “should be maintained as confidential non-public information regarding

11

marketing and advertising strategies.” Id. The Court finds Symetra has met the requirements of

12

Local Civil Rule 5(g)(3)(B) and has shown compelling reasons support the sealing of these

13

documents because the public release of these documents would harm Symetra’s business interests

14

if revealed. See Clean Crawl, Inc. v. Crawl Space Cleaning Pros, Inc., No. C17-1340 BHS, 2019

15

WL 6829886, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 13, 2019).

16

The Court accepts Davis’s representation that the parties met and conferred in compliance

17

with Local Civil Rule 5(g)(3)(A). Dkt. No. 60 at 4. The Court also accepts Davis’s representation

18

that “[n]o alternatives [to sealing] are adequate because the information, descriptions of

19

information, or documents, are needed to adequately convey Plaintiff’s argument.” Id. at 3.

20

The Court understands the parties agree on the scope of the redactions as reflected in the

21

attachments to Symetra’s response (Dkt. Nos. 87-2, 87-3, 87-4, 87-5). Accordingly, the Court

22

grants Davis’s motion to seal the following, as reflected in Symetra’s response and the attachments

23

thereto:

24

1) Certain redacted portions of Plaintiff’s motion for class certification (Dkt. No. 61);
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL - 4

1

2) Certain redacted portions of Scott J. Witt’s declaration and report (Dkt. No. 63);

2

3) The entirety of Exhibits 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, and 51 attached to the Witt

3

declaration (Dkt. No. 63); 1 and

4

4) The highlighted portions of Exhibits 3, 39, 40, and 52 attached to the Witt declaration,

5

as reflected in Symetra’s briefing (Dkt. Nos. 87-2, 87-3, 87-4, 85-5).
IV. SYMETRA’S MOTION TO SEAL

6

Symetra filed a motion to seal additional documents on February 21, 2024. Dkt. No. 83.

7
8

As noted supra, the motion is unopposed. Symetra requests the Court seal:
1) Certain portions of Symetra’s motion to exclude expert testimony of Scott J. Witt (Dkt.

9

No. 81);

10

2) Certain portions of Symetra’s opposition to Davis’s motion for class certification (Dkt.

11

No. 80);

12

3) The entirety of exhibits 2 and 3 attached to the declaration of Laura L. Geist (Dkt. Nos.

13

82-2, 82-3);

14

4) Certain portions of exhibits 4, 6, and 7 attached to the Geist declaration (Dkt. Nos. 82-

15

4, 82-6, 82-7); and

16
17

5) The entirety of exhibits B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and L, attached to the expert report

18

of Craig Reynolds (Dkt. No. 85-5, 85-6, 85-7, 85-8, 85-9, 85-10, 85-11, 85-12, 85-13,

19

85-14, 85-15).

20

Dkt. No. 83-1.

21
22
23
24

Symetra’s proposed order references the declaration of Philip Hughes. Dkt. No. 87-1 at 1. However, the Court
interprets this as a scrivener’s error, as the Court understands the parties’ briefing to refer to the attachments to the
declaration of Scott J. Witt (Dkt. No. 63). This conclusion is supported by the fact that attached to Symetra’s
response are four redacted versions of exhibits attached to Scott J. Witt’s declaration (see Dkt. No. 68), and the fact
that there is no declaration of Philip Hughes on this docket that includes attached exhibits.
1

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL - 5

1

Symetra states these documents “consist of or are derived from confidential and proprietary

2

business information about Symetra’s practices for pricing and maintenance of its insurance

3

products[.]” Dkt. No. 83 at 8. Symetra states information in these documents “is highly sensitive

4

and highly valuable to Symetra’s competitors, who could use this information to not only improve

5

their own product development but inform their business growth strategy in order to outcompete

6

Symetra.” Id. Symetra explains that the public disclosure of this information would harm

7

Symetra’s competitive standing. Id. at 8–9. The Court accepts Symetra’s representation that the

8

parties agreed to limit the need to file documents under seal to only the extent necessary to protect

9

Symetra’s sensitive information, and that less restrictive alternatives are insufficient to protect the

10

confidential information at issue. Id. at 10. The Court finds Symetra has satisfied the requirements

11

of Local Civil Rule 5(g)(3)(B) and has shown that compelling reasons justify the sealing of these

12

documents because the public release of these documents would harm Symetra’s business interests

13

if revealed.

14

The Court accepts Symetra’s representation that the parties met and conferred in

15

compliance with Local Civil Rule 5(g)(3)(A). Dkt. No. 83 at 6. Accordingly, Symetra’s motion

16

is granted.
V.

17
18
19
20

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Davis’s motion to seal (Dkt. No. 60) and GRANTS
Symetra’s motion to seal (Dkt. No. 83).
Dated this 27th day of March, 2024.

21

A

22
23

Kymberly K. Evanson
United States District Judge

24
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL - 6