Goodman v. First Unum Life Insurance Company ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 TANYA GOODMAN, CASE NO. C21-cv-0902-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED 12 v. MOTION TO SEAL 13 FIRST UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ stipulated motion to seal the 17 administrative record. Dkt. No. 15. This lawsuit concerns Goodman’s claim for disability 18 insurance benefits under a long-term disability insurance policy issued by Defendant First Unum 19 Life Insurance Company to her former employer under the Employee Retirement Income Security 20 Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. (“ERISA”). Dkt. No. 1 at 2–3. The parties have met and conferred, 21 agreed that the administrative record should be filed under seal, and agreed that redaction is not a 22 feasible alternative to sealing because of the voluminous amount of medical and other personal 23 information in the administrative record. Dkt. No. 15 at 3. 24 1 Courts have recognized a “‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 2 including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 3 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 4 (1978)). Accordingly, when a court considers a sealing request, “a strong presumption in favor of 5 access is the starting point.” Id. at 1178 (cleaned up). This presumption, however, “is not absolute 6 and can be overridden given sufficiently compelling reasons for doing so.” Foltz v. State Farm 7 Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. 8 U.S. Dist. Ct. N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999)). The standard for 9 determining whether to seal a record depends on the filing to which the sealed record is attached 10 and whether those records are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” See Ctr. for 11 Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1098–1102 (9th Cir. 2016). If the records at issue are 12 more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the court must apply the “compelling 13 reasons” standard to the motion to seal. See id. If the records are only tangentially related to the 14 merits, the party seeking to seal the records need only show “good cause” to seal those records. 15 See id. 16 The Court applies the compelling reasons standard because, if this case proceeds, the 17 administrative record will be used to support dispositive motions, which will be more than 18 tangentially related to the merits of the case. Dkt. No. 13 at 2, 7. The compelling reasons standard 19 is met because Goodman has a legitimate interest in keeping her personal and medical information 20 private. See, e.g., Karpenski v. Am. Gen. Life Companies, LLC, C12-01569-RSM, 2013 WL 21 5588312, at *1 (W.D. Wash. 2013) (stating that the “need to protect medical privacy qualifies in 22 general as a ‘compelling reason’” to protect medical records and to file them under seal, even if a 23 plaintiff has put her medical information at issue in a lawsuit). Her privacy interests outweigh any 24 limited interest the public might have in the information. Furthermore, the administrative record 1 is too voluminous and contains too much personal, sensitive information to make redaction a 2 feasible alternative. LCR 5(g); Dkt. Nos. 16–18, 20. 3 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ stipulated motion to seal the administrative 4 record, Dkt. No. 15. 5 6 Dated this 14th day of March, 2022. 7 A 8 Lauren King United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24