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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?