Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02280/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02280-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MILLENNIUM LABORATORIES,

INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-CV-2280 H (KSC)

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

SEAL THE COURT’S ORDER

[Doc. No. 74]

vs.

ALLIED WORLD ASSURANCE

COMPANY (U.S.), INC.,

Defendant.

On July 22, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiff Millennium Laboratories, Inc.’s

motion for summary judgment without prejudice. (Doc. No. 73.) On July 24, 2013,

Plaintiff filed a motion to file the Court’s July 22, 2013 order under seal. (Doc. No.

74.) Specifically, Plaintiff requests that the Court redact footnotes 1 and 2 from the

public version of the order. (Id.) The Court has reviewed the two footnotes at issue and

concludes that good cause does not exist to seal the two footnotes. 

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public

records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City

& Cnty of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner

Commc’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Except for documents that are

traditionally kept secret, there is “a strong presumption in favor of access to court

- 1 - 12cv2280

Case 3:12-cv-02280-BAS-KSC Document 76 Filed 07/29/13 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003);

see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79. “A party seeking to seal a judicial record then

bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the compelling

reasons standard. That is, the party must articulate compelling reasons supported by

specific factual findings, . . . that outweigh the general history of access and the public

policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial

process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (citations and quotation marks omitted). 

The presumed right to access to court proceedings and documents can be overcome

“only by an overriding right or interest ‘based on findings that closure is essential to

preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.’” Oregonian

Publ’g Co. v. United States Dist. Ct., 920 F.2d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir.1990) (quoting

Press-Enterprise Co. v. Sup. Ct., 446 U.S. 501, 510 (1985)). 

Although there is no right of public access to information about a grand jury

investigation during the pre-indictment stage of the investigation, United States v. Bus.

of the Custer Battlefield Museum, 658 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2011), it is public

knowledge that Plaintiff is being investigated by a federal grand jury for allegations of

health care fraud. (See Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 2, 13-14; Doc. No. 57-2, Declaration of Robert

Wiygul Ex. 2.) Footnotes 1 and 2 do not reveal any additional material information

about the grand jury investigation. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to

seal the Court’s order. See, e.g., E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., 2012

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5608, at *15-16 (E.D. Va. Apr. 20, 2012) (denying motion to seal

where it was public knowledge that there was a grand jury investigation against the

defendant).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 29, 2013

______________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

- 2 - 12cv2280

Case 3:12-cv-02280-BAS-KSC Document 76 Filed 07/29/13 Page 2 of 2