American Claims Management, Inc v. Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance Company ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, Case No.: 18-CV-925-JLS (MDD) INC., 11 ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART Plaintiff, 12 AND DENYING IN PART v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL; 13 AND (2) DENYING DEFENDANT’S ALLIED WORLD SURPLUS LINES 14 MOTIONS TO SEAL INSURANCE COMPANY (f/k/a Darwin 15 Select Insurance Company), 16 Defendant. (ECF Nos. 97, 108, 113) 17 18 Presently before the Court are Plaintiff’s (ECF No. 108) and Defendant’s (ECF Nos. 19 97, 113) Motions to File Documents Under Seal. These three motions were filed in 20 connection with Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Having carefully considered 21 the Motions, the proposed documents, and the relevant law, the Court GRANTS IN PART 22 AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion and DENIES Defendant’s Motions. 23 LEGAL STANDARD 24 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 25 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 26 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 27 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 28 Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. 1 State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption 2 of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 3 particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 4 public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 5 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 6 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 7 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 8 presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this burden 9 depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than 10 tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. When 11 the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling 12 reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does not surpass 13 the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. 14 “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 15 disclosure and justify sealing court records exists when such ‘court files might have 16 become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, 17 promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 18 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the 19 production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure 20 to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. (citing 21 Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). The decision to seal documents is “one best left to the sound 22 discretion of the trial court” upon consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of 23 the particular case.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. 24 ANALYSIS 25 I. Plaintiff’s Motion 26 Plaintiff seeks to file the following documents under seal: 27 • Exhibits 6, 15–19, 21, 26, 28–30, 32–36, 38, 41–46, 48, 51, 53, 55–57, 62–64, 28 68, and 77 to the Declaration of Dane R. Voris in Support of ACM’s Opposition 1 to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Voris Declaration,” ECF No. 2 110-1); and 3 • An unredacted version of ACM’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for 4 Summary Judgment. 5 Plaintiff contends that compelling reasons exist to seal Exhibits 6, 15, 21, 35, 36, 38, 6 41, 42, 43, 44, and 51 to the Voris Declaration because they “reflect attorney-client 7 communications and attorney work product, as well as confidential business information, 8 and communications between representatives of ACM, Allied World, and counsel for 9 ACM in the underlying matters.” (ECF No. 108 at 2.) Having reviewed the documents, 10 the Court concludes these attorney-client communications are the type of privileged 11 materials that have “traditionally been kept secret for important policy reasons,” see 12 Lambright v. Ryan, 698 F.3d 808, 820 (9th Cir. 2012), and therefore do not require 13 “compelling reasons” to file under seal. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). 14 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion as to these Exhibits. 15 As for Exhibits 16–19, 26, 28–30, 32–34, 45–46, 48, 53, 55–57, 62–64, 68, and 77 16 to the Voris Declaration, and Plaintiff’s unredacted Opposition, Plaintiff contends they 17 should be filed under seal because either Defendant or Mr. Alan Jampool has designated 18 all or part of the documents “confidential” under the Protective Order (ECF No. 38) entered 19 in this case. (ECF No. 108 at 2–3.) 20 Given the strong presumption in favor of access to court records, a party seeking to 21 file under seal materials in support of a dispositive motion, such as a motion for summary 22 judgment, must articulate compelling reasons to maintain their confidentiality. See Foltz, 23 331 F.3d at 1136. Under the compelling reasons standard, “the party seeking protection 24 bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no [protection] is 25 granted.” Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002). That 26 the documents sought to be filed under seal are subject to a protective order, without more, 27 does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136. Further, “[t]he 28 mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, 1 incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to 2 seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). 3 Here, the only reason given by Plaintiff to seal these documents is that either 4 Defendant or Mr. Jampool designated the documents as “confidential” pursuant to the 5 Protective Order in this case. (ECF No. 108 at 2–3.) A review of the Exhibits reveals that 6 they primarily consist of communications between counsel and transcripts of various 7 deposition. (See, e.g., ECF Nos. 109-3, 109-34.) It is therefore unclear to the Court what 8 portions of these Exhibits—if any—contain information that would cause specific 9 prejudice or harm if they are not filed under seal. Because Plaintiff has failed to meet its 10 burden of establishing “compelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest, 11 the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion as to Exhibits 16–19, 12 26, 28–30, 32–34, 45–46, 48, 53, 55–57, 62–64, 68, and 77 to the Voris Declaration, and 13 Plaintiff’s unredacted Opposition. 14 II. Defendant’s Motions 15 Defendant seeks leave to file the following documents under seal: 16 • Exhibits 5–11, 13, 27, 39, 42, 46, 53, 60–62, 65, 67, 69, 72, 75, 76, 78, and 82, 17 to the Declaration of Guyon H. Knight In Support of Allied World’s Motion For 18 Summary Judgment (ECF No. 99-2); 19 • Exhibits 85, 86, 89, and 90 to the Declaration of Guyon H. Knight In Support of 20 Allied World’s Reply In Further Support of Allied World’s Motion For Summary 21 Judgment (ECF No. 115-1); 22 • An unredacted copy of Allied World’s Memorandum In Support of Its Motion 23 For Summary Judgment, which contains and describes confidential and sealed 24 material from the exhibits to the Knight Declarations listed above; and 25 • An unredacted copy of Allied World’s Reply In Further Support of Its Motion 26 For Summary Judgment, which contains and describes confidential and sealed 27 material from the exhibits to the Knight Declarations listed above. 28 /// ] Defendant contends these documents should be filed under seal because either 2 || Plaintiff or Brown & Brown, Inc. has designated all or part of the documents confidential 3 || under the Protective Order (ECF No. 38) entered in this case. (ECF Nos. 97 at 2; 113 at 4 ||2.) For the same reasons articulated above, see supra Section I, the Court finds Defendant 5 ||has failed to meet its burden of establishing “compelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh 6 ||the public’s interest. The Court therefore DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE 7 || Defendant’s Motions (ECF Nos. 97, 113). 8 CONCLUSION 9 In light of the foregoing, the Court: 10 (1) GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 108) as to Exhibits 6, 15, 21, 35, 36, 11 41, 42, 43, 44, and 51 to the Voris Declaration. The Clerk of Court SHALL FILE 12 these documents under seal; 13 (2) DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 108) as to 14 ||Exhibits 16-19, 26, 28-30, 32-34, 4546, 48, 53, 55-57, 62-64, 68, and 77, and □□□□□□□□□□□ 15 || unredacted Opposition; and 16 (3) DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant’s Motions in their entirety 17 || (ECF Nos. 97, 113). 18 Within seven days of the electronic docketing of this Order, the Parties SHALL 19 || FILE renewed motions to seal that meet the “compelling reasons” standard OR the Parties 20 SHALL FILE full, unredacted copies of the documents previously lodged under seal at 21 || ECF Nos. 98, 109, and 114. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ||Dated: June 9, 2020 . tt 24 pee Janis L. Sammartino 5 United States District Judge 26 27 28