Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00944/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00944-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

18cv944-L(MSB)

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

DELAWARE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARY ELIZABETH MOORE, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv944-L (MSB)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART JOINT MOTION TO 

FILE SEALED DOCUMENTS AND FOR IN 

CAMERA REVIEW [ECF No. 37]

On December 21, 2018, the parties filed their “Joint Motion to file Sealed

Documents and for In Camera Review” [ECF No. 37], pertaining to Exhibits “A” and “B” 

to the Declaration of Nancy J. Marr, in support of their Joint Motion for Approval of 

Settlement Agreement Involving Minor. Exhibits “A” and “B” are being submitted 

pursuant to the Court’s December 11, 2018 order [ECF No. 33] for an accounting of 

attorneys’ fees and costs which the parties agreed would be reimbursed to Plaintiff 

Delaware Life Insurance Company (“Delaware Life”). (See J. Mot. at 2, ECF No. 37.) 

Exhibits “A” [ECF No. 38] and “B” [ECF no. 39] contain information regarding legal 

services performed and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred. In addition, Exhibit “B” 

contains specific information regarding rates and legal services, and is submitted to the 

Court only for its in camera review, and not served on the parties. Citing no authority, 

Case 3:18-cv-00944-L-MSB Document 41 Filed 12/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv944-L(MSB)

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

the parties agree that Delaware Life has an interest in maintaining the confidentiality of 

information in Exhibits “A” and “B” as attorney work product and attorney-client 

communications with the law firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP (“Burke”). (J. 

Mot. at 2.) 

The Court notes here that Plaintiff is submitting these Exhibits in support of the 

parties’ request that the Court approve a settlement agreement involving a minor. (See

id. at 2; J. Mot. Approve Settlement, ECF 35.) Additionally, the Court notes that Exhibit 

“B” does not contain any substantive descriptions of the legal work performed by Burke, 

but only the billing rates of its attorneys and paralegals who worked on the case, the 

number of hours billed on each monthly invoice, and costs incurred (e.g. “duplication”). 

Under Ninth Circuit precedent, “a simple invoice requesting payment for unspecified 

services rendered reveals nothing more than the amount of the fee and would not 

normally be privileged.” In re Grand Jury Witness, 695 F.2d 359, 362 (9th Cir. 1982). 

“However, correspondence, bills, ledgers, statements, and time records which also 

reveal the motive of the client in seeking representation, litigation strategy, or the 

specific nature of the services provided, such as researching particular areas of law, fall 

within the privilege.” Clarke v. Am. Commerce Nat. Bank, 974 F.2d 127, 129 (9th Cir. 

1992) (citing In re Grand Jury Witness, 695 F.2d at 362).

Under this standard, the Court finds good cause and GRANTS the joint motion 

with regards to the request to file Exhibit “A” under seal. It contains sensitive 

information about the nature of the legal work performed by Burke employees that falls

within the attorney-client privilege, and preventing disclosure of such privileged 

information is good cause to prevent public access. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. 

Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002) (“It is well-established that the 

fruits of pre-trial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, 

presumptively public. Rule 26(c) authorizes a district court to override this presumption 

where ‘good cause’ is shown.”) (internal citations omitted). 

Case 3:18-cv-00944-L-MSB Document 41 Filed 12/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv944-L(MSB)

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

However, the Court does not believe that the information contained in Exhibit “B” 

is subject to attorney-client privilege or work product protection, and as such the joint 

motion to submit Exhibit “B” for in camera review only is DENIED without prejudice. 

Nothing before the Court indicates that disclosure of the attorney billing rates or fees 

would compromise attorney-client privilege or attorney-work product. Instead, the 

Court believes that information regarding billing rates and time spent is important to 

Defendants’ ability to ascertain the fairness of Burke’s fees. 

Accordingly, Exhibit “A” to the Marr Declaration [ECF No. 38] is HEREBY ORDERED 

TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 28, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00944-L-MSB Document 41 Filed 12/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3