Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01959/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01959-0/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

1

 Certainly, there is no claim that everything filed in connection with these motions

is subject to the protective order. However, neither party has undertaken to file a sealed

version and a redacted unsealed version.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jacqueline Madsen, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Fortis Benefits Insurance Co., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-1959-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #87),

Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. #89), and Plaintiff's two Motions to

Strike (Docs. ##94 and 95). Documents 87, 94, and 95 were all filed under seal purportedly

under the protective order entered on June 9, 2005 (Doc. #32).1

 

Also pending (under seal) at Document 93 is the parties' stipulation to seal

Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #87). The stipulation seeks to seal the

Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment for reasons other than the trade secret

information allegedly protected by the protective order; specifically that Defendant's motion

includes confidential medical information of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's social security

number.

Case 2:04-cv-01959-JAT Document 102 Filed 07/13/06 Page 1 of 4
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

2

 This case involved a non-dispositive motion, which only requires a "good cause"

showing. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180.

- 2 -

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has made clear that dispositive motions should

not be filed under seal unless "compelling reasons" can be shown by the party seeking to file

under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir.

2006). In this case, various motions and responses have been filed under seal without any

showing (much less a compelling reason) because this Court previously entered a protective

order. However, the Court of Appeals has held that blanket stipulated protective orders, "are

inherently subject to challenge and modification, as the party resisting disclosure generally

has not made a particularized showing of [a compelling reason] with respect to any

individual document." San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. District Court - - Northern

District (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999).2

 Moreover, the Court of Appeals

has noted that, 

"the strong presumption of access to judicial records applies fully to

dispositive pleadings, including motions for summary judgment and related

attachments. We adopted this principle of disclosure because the resolution

of a dispute on the merits, whether by trial or summary judgment, is at the

heart of the interest in ensuring the public's understanding of the judicial

process and of significant public events." 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations omitted).

The main difference between this case and the cases considered by the Court of

Appeals is that in each of the Court of Appeals cases, a news agency was attempting to

intervene to obtain the sealed information. See San Jose Mercury News, Inc., 187 F.3d 1906

(San Jose Mercury News seeking mandamus against district court); Kamakana, 447 F.3d

1172 (The Honolulu Advertiser seeking intervention); see also Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49

F.3d 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (Oregon State Bar intervenor). In this case, no one outside the

litigation is seeking to unseal the motion or responses, and all parties have stipulated to

having all the documents sealed. Nonetheless, the question remains whether the Court has

an independent duty to make the record available to the public, even when no one has

requested such record.

Case 2:04-cv-01959-JAT Document 102 Filed 07/13/06 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 -

At this time, the Court will not undertake to sua sponte unseal all of the documents

filed under seal pursuant to the protective order which the parties have represented must be

filed under seal because they contain trade secret information. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

1179 (recognizing preventing the release of trade secrets as a valid basis for sealing

documents). However, should any party or third-party move to have these documents

unsealed, the Court has not found that either party has met the compelling reasons test for

keeping these documents sealed.

The stipulation to seal Defendant's motion for summary judgment presents a different

question. Like the blanket protective order, the stipulation (Doc. #93) filed with respect to

Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment does not advance compelling reasons to seal the

motion. Unlike the blanket protective order, however, the stipulation also does not advance

a reason for sealing recognized by the cases. Specifically, the parties claim that the

documents protected by the protective order contain trade secrets, a recognized basis for

sealing. Id. Other recognized bases include preventing the Court record to be used to gratify

private spite, promote public scandal, or circulate libelous statements. Id. Thus, generally,

the Court may seal documents when the, "court files might have become a vehicle for

improper purposes." Id. (internal quotations omitted). 

With respect to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, the parties make no

allegation that Plaintiff's medical records or social security number fall into any of the

forbidden categories. Moreover, Plaintiff has put her medical records at issue in this case by

her claim for benefits. And, while the Court recognizes that Plaintiff's social security number

is most likely not necessary to the decision on summary judgment, the Court cannot conclude

that it's inclusion was motivated by using the Court record for an improper purpose. As a

result, the Court will deny the stipulation to seal Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Finally, the parties are advised that as part of the Court's duty to make the record

available to the public, the Court will not seal the oral argument to be held in this case, nor

will the Court seal the order addressing the summary judgment motions. Further, the Court

will not undertake to determine what evidence, if any, that the Court chooses to rely on in

Case 2:04-cv-01959-JAT Document 102 Filed 07/13/06 Page 3 of 4
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

3

 And, while the Court will entertain such a motion for purposes of summary

judgment, such motion will have no impact on that fact that, if summary judgment in this

case is denied, the trial of this matter will not be conducted under seal.

- 4 -

the Order is subject to the protective order. Therefore, if there is a specific piece of evidence

submitted on summary judgment that either party feels they can meet the compelling reasons

test for keeping under seal, such party must file a motion to seal that particular piece of

evidence specifically articulating why that piece of evidence cannot be cited by the Court in

an unsealed order.3

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the stipulation to seal the motion for summary judgment (doc.

#93) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if there is a particular piece of evidence that the

either party wishes to move to keep under seal for purposes of the summary judgment order,

such party shall file a motion to seal such evidence, within 10 days of this Order, showing

compelling reasons why such evidence must be kept from the public record.

DATED this 13th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01959-JAT Document 102 Filed 07/13/06 Page 4 of 4