Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00124/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00124-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 12:635 Breach of 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

PAUL EVERT’S RV COUNTRY, 

INC.; PAUL EVERT; and CHARLES 

CURTIS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS 

INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 

1-25, inclusive,

Defendant.

CIV. NO. 1:15-00124 WBS SKO

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: THIRD 

AMENDED REQUEST TO SEAL

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. 

----oo0oo----

Plaintiffs Paul Evert’s RV Country, Inc., Paul Evert, 

and Charles Curtis initiated this suit against defendant 

Universal Underwriters Insurance Company alleging a breach of 

defendant’s duty to defend and indemnify. Defendant subsequently 

filed cross-claims for declaratory relief. Presently before the 

Case 1:15-cv-00124-WBS-SKO Document 88 Filed 09/22/16 Page 1 of 5
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

court is plaintiffs’ amended request to seal in connection with 

their opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment and 

their amended request to seal certain portions of their 

opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Docket 

Nos. 78, 86.) 

On August 5, 2016, this court denied the parties’ 

requests that the court seal their cross-motions for summary 

judgment, responsive briefs, and all supporting documents as 

overly broad. (Aug. 5, 2016 Order (Docket No. 64).) On August 

31, 2016, this court again denied the parties’ requests to seal 

certain exhibits. (Aug. 31, 2016 Order (Docket No. 74).) In the 

August 31, 2016 Order, this court stated plaintiffs may file an 

amended request to seal that “makes clear exactly what might be 

harmful to them in the underlying state court action and should 

therefore be redacted.” (Id.)

Plaintiffs move to seal all or part of twenty-two 

exhibits. (Docket No. 78.) Plaintiffs also move to seal 

portions of seven pages of their opposition to defendant’s motion 

to dismiss and portions of eight additional material facts in 

their opposition to defendant’s separate statement of facts. 

(Docket No. 86.)

A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the 

burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public 

access. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 

1178 (9th Cir. 2006). 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 

Case 1:15-cv-00124-WBS-SKO Document 88 Filed 09/22/16 Page 2 of 5
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

judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79 (citation omitted). In ruling 

on a motion to seal, the court must balance the competing 

interests of the public and the party seeking to keep records 

secret. Id. at 1179. “The privilege which protects attorneyclient communications may not be used both as a sword and a 

shield.” Chevron Corp. v. Pennzoil Co., 974 F.2d 1156, 1162 (9th 

Cir. 1992). 

The court acknowledges plaintiffs identified specific 

material in its amended request to seal that they allege may be 

harmful to them in the underlying state court action currently on 

appeal. But plaintiffs are attempting to use information they

believe is privileged in order to defeat summary judgment while 

simultaneously preventing the public from understanding the basis 

upon which this court make its decisions. This is using the 

information both as a sword and a shield. This, paired with the 

plaintiffs’ short description of the material, does not outweigh 

the interest of the public in understanding the judicial process. 

Plaintiffs have not provided any reason why their interest in the 

privacy of these excerpts outweighs the public’s right to access. 

There are some excerpts that the court may seal. These 

excerpts are segments that plaintiffs do not rely upon in their 

opposition to the motion for summary judgment or separate 

statement of facts. Instead, these excerpts fall on the same 

page as material plaintiffs rely on in their opposition but are 

properly identified and protected by privilege. Specifically, 

plaintiffs’ amended request to seal includes portions of the 

depositions of Stephanie Cole, Gregory Dyer, Richard Harris, and 

Charles Curtis; a portion of an email conversation between Ms. 

Case 1:15-cv-00124-WBS-SKO Document 88 Filed 09/22/16 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Cole and insured; and portions of the May 20, 2016 Expert Report 

of Guy Kornblum. These excerpts relate to conversations between 

plaintiffs and their attorneys regarding the merits of the 

underlying state court action, which this court has recognized as 

potentially protected.

Accordingly the court will remove from the public 

docket the following pages: exhibit 2 at lines 5-6 of the email 

from Stephanie Cole dated June 17, 2011, at 11:49 AM; exhibit 3 

at 157:1-3, 5, 222:11-18, 242:6-20, deposition transcript of Ms. 

Cole; exhibit 5 at 37:9-18, 38:4-7, deposition transcript of 

attorney Gregory Dyer; exhibit 11 at pages 12 to 16, expert 

report of Guy Kornblum; exhibit 13 at 47:16-24, 58:2, deposition 

transcript of attorney Richard Harris; and exhibit 17 at 29:17-

25, 85:17-24, 91:20-22, deposition transcript of Charles Curtis.

Plaintiffs’ request to seal certain portions of their 

opposition to motion for summary judgment fails for the same 

reasons as the requests to seal portions of certain exhibits. 

Plaintiffs do not establish why their interest in sealing these 

portions of their opposition to summary judgment outweighs the 

public’s interest in disclosure and access. See Kamakana, 447 

F.3d at 1178. For the reasons stated above and the reasons in 

this court’s previous orders, the court will deny plaintiffs’ 

amended request to seal certain portions of their opposition to 

motion for summary judgment. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ amended 

request to seal in connection with its opposition to defendant’s 

motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 78) be, and the same 

hereby is, GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The court will 

Case 1:15-cv-00124-WBS-SKO Document 88 Filed 09/22/16 Page 4 of 5
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

5

remove from the public docket the following portions of the 

exhibits filed in connection with plaintiffs’ opposition to 

motion for summary judgment: exhibit 2 at lines 5-6 of the email 

from Stephanie Cole dated June 17, 2011, at 11:49 AM (Docket No. 

85-5); exhibit 3 at 157:1-3, 5, 222:11-18, 242:6-20, deposition 

transcript of Ms. Cole (Docket No. 85-5); exhibit 5 at 37:9-18, 

38:4-7, deposition transcript of attorney Gregory Dyer (Docket 

No. 85-6); exhibit 11 at pages 12 to 16, expert report of Guy 

Kornblum (Docket No. 85-7); exhibit 13 at 47:16-24, 58:2, 

deposition transcript of attorney Richard Harris (Docket No. 85-

7); and exhibit 17 at 29:17-25, 85:17-24, 91:20-22, deposition 

transcript of Charles Curtis (Docket No. 85-8).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ amended request 

to seal certain portions of their opposition to motion for 

summary judgment (Docket No. 86) be, and the same hereby is, 

DENIED.

Dated: September 22, 2016

Case 1:15-cv-00124-WBS-SKO Document 88 Filed 09/22/16 Page 5 of 5