Lavinder v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company
Filing
70
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying the defendant's 67 MOTION to Seal; directing the Clerk to UNSEAL the defendant's Motion and supporting Memorandum. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 12/15/2016. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
SETH LAVINDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-15514
MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is the defendant Mutual of Omaha Insurance
Company’s Motion to Seal [ECF No. 67]. For the reasons given below, the Motion is
DENIED.
I.
Background
This action concerns an insurance contract dispute between the plaintiff and
the defendant. The plaintiff alleges three Counts against the defendant: (1) breach of
contract, (2) unfair claims settlement practices, and (3) breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing/bad faith. See Notice of Removal Ex. A [ECF
No. 1-1] (“Compl”). The plaintiff alleges that he “was insured under a Long Term
Disability Policy issued by Mutual of Omaha” and had “paid the premiums to Mutual
of Omaha to keep the Policy in full force and effect.” Compl. ¶ 3. According to the
Complaint, the plaintiff submitted a claim to the defendant for long term disability
benefits under the terms of the insurance policy and submitted sufficient evidence to
support his claim. Compl. ¶ 5. The defendant denied his claim, and the plaintiff
initiated an administrative appeal, which was also denied. Compl. ¶¶ 6, 7. The
plaintiff alleges that the defendant’s refusal to pay benefits under the insurance
policy was arbitrary and capricious, unsupported in fact or in law, and a breach of
contract. Compl. ¶ 8.
Pursuant to the Amended Scheduling Order, any dispositive motions in this
case must be filed on or before December 20, 2016. Am. Scheduling Order [ECF No.
35]. The defendant requests to seal its present Motion and supporting memorandum,
its motion for summary judgment and supporting memorandum, and all supporting
exhibits. Mot. 2. The defendant argues that these documents should be sealed
because the documents contain sensitive medical information regarding the plaintiff.
II.
Legal Standard
While documents may be protected if they contain trade secrets or other
confidential information, “[o]nce documents are made part of a dispositive motion,
such as a summary judgment motion, they ‘lose their status of being raw fruits of
discovery.’” Rushford v. New Yorker Mag., Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 252 (4th Cir. 1988).
Accordingly, the court will not seal a document simply because the parties have
designated that document as “Confidential.” A motion to seal must be filed.
According to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 26.4(b)(2), a motion to seal must be
accompanied by a memorandum of law that contains “(A) the reasons why sealing is
2
necessary, including the reasons why alternatives to sealing, such as redaction, are
inadequate; (B) the requested duration of the proposed seal; and (C) a discussion of
the propriety of sealing, giving due regard to the parameters of the common law and
First Amendment rights of access as interpreted by the Supreme Court and our Court
of Appeals.” LR Civ P 26.4(b)(2). The court will only seal documents when
“exceptional circumstances” are present. LR Civ P 26.4(b)(1). In order to determine
whether the materials should be sealed, the court will weigh the public’s First
Amendment and common law rights of access against the interests of the party
seeking continued confidentiality. See Va. Dep’t of St. Police v. Wash. Post, 386 F.3d
567, 575–76 (4th Cir. 2004).
The common law right affords presumptive access to all judicial records and
documents. Nixon v. Warner Comms., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); Stone v. U. of
Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 855 F.2d 178, 180 (4th Cir. 1988). Materials that fall within the
common law right may be sealed only if competing interests outweigh the public’s
right of access. Generally, “all documents filed for the Court’s consideration in a civil
case, even if not the subject of a judicial decision, are subject to presumptive access.”
Walker Sys. v. Hubbell, Inc., 188 F.R.D. 428, 429 (S.D. W. Va. 1999); see also Brown
& Williamson Tobacco v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165 (6th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S.
1100 (1983); In re Coordinated Pretrial Proc. in Petroleum Prods. Antitrust Litig.,
101 F.R.D. 34, 38 (C.D. Cal. 1984). Public inspection of court documents “is necessary
to allow interested parties to judge the court’s work product in the cases assigned to
3
it.” LR Civ P 26.4(b)(1).
The public’s First Amendment right of access can only be overcome when “the
denial [of access] is necessitated by a compelling governmental interest, and is
narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457
U.S. 596, 606–07 (1982); Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 15
(1986); Va. Dep’t of St. Police, 386 F.3d at 573.
In a concurring opinion, the Fourth Circuit provided some procedural guidance
to district courts for the sealing of documents:
First, the judicial officer must “state the reasons for [her] decision to seal
supported by specific findings.” In re Knight Pub. Co., 743 F.2d 231, 235
(4th Cir. 1984). “The judicial officer may explicitly adopt the facts that
the government presents to justify sealing . . . [b]ut the decision to seal
must be made by the judicial officer.” Balt. Sun Co. v. Goetz, 886 F.2d
60, 65 (4th Cir. 1989). Second, “the judicial officer must consider
alternatives to sealing the documents. This ordinarily involves
disclosing some of the documents or giving access to a redacted version.”
Id. at 66 (citations omitted). Third, a judicial officer must give notice to
the public by docketing the order sealing the documents. Id. at 65. All of
these procedures “must be followed when a [judicial officer] seals judicial
records or documents.” Stone v. U. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 855 F.2d 178,
179–80 (4th Cir. 1988) (emphasis added).
Media Gen. Operations, Inc. v. Buchanan, 417 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2005)
(Michael, J., concurring).
III.
Discussion
The defendant states that the “defense in this lawsuit is predicated in large
part upon the medical conditions of the Plaintiff and the medical records and
documents associated therewith.” Mem. Supp. Mot. Seal 2 [ECF No. 67-1]. According
4
to the defendant, its summary judgment motion will contain “argument and exhibits
including medical records which necessarily discuss the Plaintiff’s physical and
psychological condition at the time of his long term disability claim in 2013–2015 as
well as the testimony of his doctors regarding the Plaintiff’s medical conditions at the
time of his claim.” Id. The defendant states, “Although there is a common law
presumptive right of public access to all judicial records, exceptional circumstances
exist in this case to warrant that Mutual of Omaha’s summary judgment briefs and
exhibits be sealed from public view. . . . To allow public inspection of these documents
would adversely affect the medical and privacy interests of the Plaintiff.” Id. at 2–3.
Moreover, the defendant argues that “[a]lternatives to sealing, like redaction, would
not be adequate because such a large portion of the documents would have to be
redacted,” hampering the court’s review of the motion and supporting documents. Id.
at 3.
Beyond its offering of conclusory statements, the defendant has not provided
the court with sufficient information to determine that “exceptional circumstances”
are present to warrant the granting of its Motion. See LR Civ P 26.4(b)(1) (“The rule
requiring public inspection of court documents is necessary to allow interested parties
to judge the court’s work product in the cases assigned to it. The rule may be
abrogated only in exceptional circumstances.”). The defendant addresses several—
but not all—of the required factors to be considered in ruling on a motion to seal. The
defendant does, albeit casually, discuss the public’s common law right to access court
5
documents, and it also mentions the feasibility of alternatives to sealing the
documents, such as redaction. Nevertheless, the defendant offers no specific facts or
examples to support its conclusion that the public’s interest in accessing court records
is outweighed by the plaintiff’s privacy interest regarding his medical records. The
defendant has not attached any supporting information that would allow the court to
independently assess the character of the information sought to be protected. In other
words, the defendant asks the court to simply take its word for it. The Fourth Circuit
has held that “[t]he decision to seal documents must be made after independent
review by a judicial officer, and supported by ‘findings and conclusions specific enough
for appellate review.’” Media Gen. Operations, Inc., 417 F.3d at 429 (quoting Balt.
Sun Co. v. Goetz, 886 F.2d 60, 65–66 (4th Cir. 1989)). The court is simply without any
means to independently review the character of the information at issue.
Additionally, the defendant has failed to include in its Motion any discussion
regarding the suggested duration of the proposed seal or the public’s rights under the
First Amendment.
Accordingly, the defendant’s Motion is DENIED.
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the court ORDERS that the defendant’s Motion
to Seal [ECF No. 67] is DENIED. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to UNSEAL the
defendant’s Motion and supporting Memorandum [ECF No. 67-1].
6
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record
and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:
7
December 15, 2016
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?