Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08162/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08162-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

In re: Allstate Life Insurance Company 

Litigation 

No. CV-09-08162-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are five Stipulations to File Under Seal Certain Exhibits 

attached to various Motions. (Docs. 676, 683, 698, 700, 722.) For the reasons discussed 

below, the Court denies all five motions without prejudice. 

 The parties in this case have stipulated to a Protective Order regarding any 

information, regardless of how it is generated, stored, or maintained, and any tangible 

things for which a party can establish good cause as maintaining as confidential pursuant 

to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 438.) The Protective Order 

sets out a procedure by which a party may label as confidential any information or object 

it seeks to protect. (Id. at 4–6.) However, as the Court noted in an earlier order, merely 

designating something as confidential does not constitute a compelling reason to seal it. 

(Doc. 604.) 

 Because of the strong presumption in favor of public access to court documents, a 

Case 3:09-cv-08162-GMS Document 762 Filed 03/21/13 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

party must set forth compelling reasons to justify sealing a judicial record. Kamakana v. 

City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). This standard means 

that 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.” Id. at 1178–79 (internal quotations omitted). 

 The Underwriters seek to file Exhibits 8–25 to their Motion to Exclude Report and 

Testimony of William Rhoda under seal. (Doc. 676.) They assert that each of the Exhibits 

“contains sensitive information concerning the financial performance of events centers 

and similar entities that are not parties to this case.” (Id. at 5.) This vague description 

does not meet the Ninth Circuit’s requirement of “specific factual findings that outweigh 

the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 

F.3d at 1178. Thus, the Stipulation is denied without prejudice. Similarly, the 

Underwriters seek to file Exhibits 6 and 36–39 to the Motion for Summary Judgment 

under seal. (Doc. 683.) The claim that the documents “contain[] internal information 

concerning Wells Fargo’s corporate practices that is not publically available.” Again, 

they fail to meet the standard set forth in Kamakana. This Stipulation is also denied 

without prejudice. 

 All Defendants seek to file certain exhibits under seal that are to be attached to the 

Joint Statement of Facts in Support of Their Separate Motions for Summary Judgment. 

(Doc. 698.) Some of these exhibits were marked as confidential when produced by 

Allstate; others discuss documents that were marked confidential by Allstate. (Id. at 4.) In 

addition, the parties claim that the documents “contain sensitive information concerning 

Allstate’s corporate practices. This justification is not specific enough to satisfy the 

Kamakana standard; thus, the Stipulation is denied without prejudice. 

 The Defendants further seek to file Exhibits 53 and 87 under seal as attachments to 

the Joint Statement of Facts. (Doc. 700.) The asserted reason for seeking to file under seal 

is that these Exhibits were produced by Global and marked “Confidential.” (Id. at 3.) 

According to the Stipulation, Global has obtained new counsel since the time that the 

Case 3:09-cv-08162-GMS Document 762 Filed 03/21/13 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

documents were produced, and it is now unclear why the documents were originally 

designated as confidential. The parties wish to file them under seal “in an abundance of 

caution.” (Id.) However, “[a] ‘confidential designation’ by a party is not in and of itself a 

compelling reason to seal as required by 9th Circuit law.” (Doc. 604.) This Stipulation is 

therefore denied without prejudice. 

 Similarly, Kutak Rock seeks to file under seal its Unredacted Motion for Summary 

Judgment, Unredacted Statement of Facts, and Exhibits 64–69. (Doc. 722.) The parties 

assert that this information contains “confidential information relating to Wells Fargo’s 

policies and procedures.” (Id. at 2.) They further assert that Exhibits 64–69 were 

designated “Confidential” by Wells Fargo. These reasons were rejected as insufficient to 

satisfy Kamakana’s standard for sealing judicial records above. Thus, this Stipulation is 

also denied without prejudice. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Parties’ Stipulations to File Under Seal 

(Docs. 676, 683, 698, 700, 722) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

 Dated this 21st day of March, 2013. 

Case 3:09-cv-08162-GMS Document 762 Filed 03/21/13 Page 3 of 3