Arch Insurance Company v. Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company ( 2021 )

INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICTOFNORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION Civil ActionNo.:5:21-CV-4-FL ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, AS ) SUBROGEE OF COX SCHEPP/AP ) ATLANTIC JV, LLC, COX & SCHEPP, ) INC., AND AP ATLANTIC, INC. D/B/A ) ADOLFSON & PETERSON ) CONSTRUCTION, ) ) CLAIMANT, ) ORDER ON MOTION TO SEAL ) DOCUMENT vs. ) ) STARR SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE ) COMPANY, ) ) DEFENDANT. ) ____________________________________ ) Before the Court is Defendant STARR SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY’s (“Starr”) Unopposed Motion for Leave to Seala Settlement Agreement and MutualRelease pled indefensetotheAmendedComplaint and marked asExhibit Eto itsAnswerandDefensesandto publiclyfilearedactedversionofitsAnswerandDefensesnarrowlytailoredtoremovereferences tothe Settlement Agreement and MutualRelease (“Agreement”) [DE29]. TheAgreement containsaConfidentialityprovisionwherebyCoxSchepp/APAtlanticJV, LLC,Cox&Schepp,Inc.,andAPAtlantic,Inc.d/b/a Adolfson&PetersonConstruction,who are alleged to be Plaintiff’s subrogees, and Starr agreed to keep the terms of the Agreement confidential. As consideration for entering into the Agreement, the parties agreed on a confidentialityprovisionthatpreventseitherpartyfromdisclosinganyinformationconcerningthe terms of the Agreement to anyone, except to its employees, officers, directors, insurers and prospective insurers,counsel,parents,subsidiaries,sureties,oraffiliatesofeachPartywho have a after the written consent thereto is obtained from the other Parties. The terms of the Settlement Agreement discern no significant public interest and are of the nature of material that courts routinely allow to be filed under seal. The Court therefore finds that it is appropriate to enter an order sealing the previously filed Answer and Defenses [DE 28]. In order to minimize concerns relating to public access, the Court accepts the redacted version of the Answer and Defenses attached to Defendant’s MemorandumofLaw [DE 30-1]. TheCourthascometothisconclusionmindfulofthefactorssetforthinStonev.University ofMarylandMedicalSystemCorp.,855F.2d.178,(4thCir.1988);seealso,Ashcraftv.Cononco, Inc. 218 F.3d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000), which mandates that before entering an order to seal documents, a district court must “(1) provide public notice of the request to seal and allow interestedpartiesareasonableopportunitytoobject,(2)considerlessdrasticalternativestosealing the documents, and (3) provide specific reasons and factual findings supporting its decisions to sealthe documents.” Docketing the motion to seal reasonably in advance of deciding the issue is sufficient to meet thepublic noticerequirement. Ashcraft;InreKnightPublishingCo.,743F.2d231,235(4th Cir. 1984).Additionally, byallowing Starrto file a redactedversionofthe Answer and Defenses, the sealing of documents is less drastic. Lastly, the Court concurs with Agdata v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82647 (W.D. N.C. 2013), that the confidential nature of the Settlement Agreement, and any reference to the confidential terms of the Settlement Agreement, outweighs the public's right to access this document. ThisCourtfindsthatStarrhascompliedsatisfiedthestandardsetforthinStonebypublicly filing contemporaneously with this motion a redacted version of the Answer and Defenses narrowly tailored to remove the confidential reference to the Agreement. For these reasons, and for goodcause shown, the Defendant’s Motion forLeave to sealthe previously filed Answer [DE 29] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to seal the previously filed, unredacted version of Defendant’s Answer and Defenses [DE 28] and Exhibit E to the Answer and Defenses [DE 28- 5], and that those documents shall remain SEALED until further order of this Court. SO ORDERED, this 28 _ day of October, 2921. HON. LOUISE W. FLANAGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE