Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05906/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05906-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM JEFFREY BURNETT, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-05906-SI 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL

Currently before the Court is plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal 

documents in connection with its opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. Docket No. 650. 

Plaintiff has submitted the declaration of plaintiffs’ counsel Derek Sugimura in support of the

motion to file under seal. Docket No. 650-2. The Sugimura declaration states that defendants, the 

designating parties, have identified the documents “Confidential.” Id. at 1. 

With the exception of a narrow range of documents that are “traditionally kept secret,” 

courts begin their sealing analysis with “a strong presumption in favor of access.” Foltz v. State 

Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). “Reference to a stipulation or a 

blanket protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not 

sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). 

When applying to file documents under seal in connection with a dispositive motion, the party 

seeking to seal 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 v. City and County of Honolulu, 

447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Where a party 

seeks to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive motion, a showing of “good cause” under 

Case 3:12-cv-05906-SI Document 36 Filed 02/05/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient. Id. at 1179-80; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). 

In addition, all requests to file under seal must be “narrowly tailored,” such that only sealable 

information is sought to be redacted from public access. Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). 

The plaintiffs’ supporting declaration does not demonstrate that the submitted documents, 

in their entirety, should be filed under seal. Mr. Sugimura’s declaration provides no justification 

for sealing except that the defendants have designated the documents as confidential pursuant to 

the agreement between the parties and the protective order. The fact that the parties agreed among 

themselves to keep these documents private, without more, is no reason to shield the information 

from the public at large. Further, defendants—the designating parties—failed to submit a 

declaration establishing that the designated material is sealable. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES the motion to file under seal. This denial is 

without prejudice to the parties refiling the motion and supporting declaration no later than 

February 13, 2015, in a format that is narrowly tailored and demonstrates “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. The unredacted version of the documents sought to be filed 

under seal must indicate, by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that 

have been omitted from the redacted version. Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2015

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-05906-SI Document 36 Filed 02/05/15 Page 2 of 2