Vitus Group LLC et al v. Admiral Insurance Company et al

Filing 45

AMENDED ORDER re 44 Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' 30 Unopposed MOTION to Seal. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' request as to the amended complaint (filed under seal at Dkt. # 32 ) and opposition (filed under seal at Dkt. # 34 ). Plaintiffs' request to seal the supporting declaration and exhibits (Dkt. # 35 ) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiffs may re-file the motion to seal and propose narrowly tailored redactions to the Agrawal declaration and exhibits. Plaintiffs shall file any motion to seal containing revised redactions within fourteen (14) days. The Clerk shall not unseal any currently sealed documents filed pending further order of this Court. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (SS)

1

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

VITUS GROUP, LLC; VITUS
No. 2:24-cv-00282-RAJ
DEVELOPMENT IV, LLC; RIVERWOOD
TOWNHOMES, INC.; RIVERWOOD
HOUSING PARTNERS, LP; GREEN
MEADOWS HOUSING MANAGEMENT,
LLC; GREEN MEADOWS HOUSING
AMENDED ORDER
PARTNERS, LP; WESTLAKE LINWOOD
HOUSING PARTNERS, LP; WESTLAKE
LINWOOD HOUSING MANAGEMENT,
LLC; PINES HOUSING PARTNERS, LP; and
HILTON HEAD HOUSING PARTNERS, LP,
Plaintiffs,

v.

ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

21

Defendant.

22
23

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to File their

24

First Amended Complaint, Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and Supporting

25

Declaration of Suyash Agrawal Under Seal. Dkt. # 30. The instant matter stems from an

26

insurance dispute between Plaintiffs Vitus Group, LLC, Vitus Development IV, LLC,

27

Riverwood Housing Partners, LP, Green Meadows Housing Management, LLC, Green

28

ORDER – 1

1

Meadows Housing Partners, LP, Westlake Linwood Housing Partners, LP, Westlake

2

Linwood Housing Management, LLC, Pines Housing Partners, LP, and Hilton Head

3

Housing Partners, LP (collectively “Vitus”) and Defendant Admiral Insurance Company

4

(“Admiral”). Plaintiffs are the insureds under primary liability insurance policies

5

purchased from Admiral. Dkt. # 31 (First Amended Complaint) ¶ 1.2. Plaintiffs allege

6

that Admiral has, over Plaintiffs’ opposition, accepted policy-limit settlement demands in

7

connection with several alleged shootings that have occurred on housing complexes

8

owned by Plaintiffs. Id. ¶ 1.3. According to Plaintiffs, Admiral’s actions are premature

9

and have exposed Vitus to liability in connection with the underlying alleged shootings.

10

Id. ¶ 1.5. Plaintiffs filed their complaint in King County Superior Court, and Admiral

11

then removed the matter to federal court. Dkt. # 1, 1-2. Admiral has filed to dismiss or

12

stay this action in favor of two interpleader lawsuits that Admiral filed in Georgia. Dkt. #

13

14. Vitus opposes Admiral’s motion. Dkt. # 34. Plaintiffs have moved to remand the

14

matter to King County Superior Court. Dkt. # 36.

15

Plaintiffs now seek to seal the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 32) and file a

16

redacted version (Dkt. # 31), seal its Opposition to Admiral’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay

17

(Dkt. # 34) and file a redacted version (Dkt. # 33), and seal the accompanying

18

Declaration of Suyash Agrawal ISO Plaintiff’s Opposition and supporting exhibits (Dkt.

19

# 35). Dkt. # 30. Admiral does not oppose this request.

20

In the Western District of Washington, “there is a strong presumption of public

21

access to the court’s files.” Western District of Washington Local Civil Rule (“LCR”)

22

5(g). “Only in rare circumstances should a party file a motion, opposition, or reply under

23

seal.” LCR 5(g)(5). Normally the moving party must include “a specific statement of the

24

applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, with

25

evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” LCR 5(g)(3)(B).

26

Under LCR 5(g), when a party files a stipulated motion to seal a document, the

27

party must certify that all parties have conferred in an attempt to reach agreement as to

28

ORDER – 2

1

the need to seal and to minimize the amount of material filed under seal, and explore

2

redaction and other alternatives to filing under seal. LCR 5(g)(3)(A). Further, the party

3

must set forth a “specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for

4

keeping a document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or

5

public interest that warrant the relief sought; (ii) the injury that will result if the relief

6

sought is not granted; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not

7

sufficient.” LCR 5(g)(3)(B).

8

Although attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine may be

9

“compelling reason[s]” to seal documents, Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435

10

F.3d 110, 125 (2nd Cir. 2006), “only in rare circumstances should” a motion, opposition,

11

or reply be filed under seal. LCR 5(g)(5). Instead, a party should “redact the confidential

12

information” and file the unredacted pleading under seal, along with a motion to seal.

13

LCR 5(g)(5)(A)-(B).

14

Here, Plaintiffs argue that there is good cause to seal the amended complaint,

15

opposition brief, and declaration and supporting exhibits in order to protect privileged

16

communications between the parties. Plaintiffs have filed a redacted copy of the amended

17

complaint and opposition, see Dkt. ## 31, 33, but the opposition’s supporting declaration

18

and exhibits have been filed under seal in their entirety. See Dkt. # 35.

19

The Court finds the proposed redactions to the amended complaint and opposition

20

to Admiral’s motion to dismiss to be reasonable to protect privileged communications

21

between the parties. Here, Plaintiff has requested a less restrictive alternative to sealing

22

entire documents, see LCR 5(g)(3)(B), and this request is unopposed. The Court

23

GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request as to the amended complaint (filed under seal at Dkt. # 32)

24

and opposition (filed under seal at Dkt. # 34).

25

As to Plaintiffs’ request to seal the supporting declaration and exhibits, this Court

26

must balance Plaintiffs’ interest in maintaining the confidentiality of privileged

27

conversations with the right of public access. The sealing of entire documents fails to

28

ORDER – 3

1

accomplish this goal and Plaintiffs fail to show why a less restrictive alternative to

2

sealing, such as redaction, is not sufficient to protect privileged communications. See

3

LCR 5(g). Therefore, Plaintiffs’ request to seal the supporting declaration and exhibits

4

(Dkt. # 35) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiffs may re-file the motion to seal and

5

propose narrowly tailored redactions to the Agrawal declaration and exhibits. Plaintiffs

6

shall file any motion to seal containing revised redactions within fourteen (14) days. The

7

Clerk shall not unseal any currently sealed documents filed pending further order of this

8

Court.

9

DATED this 9th day of May, 2024.

A

10
11

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 4