Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00829/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00829-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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 - 09cv829 WQH (WVG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHELIA WATTS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv829 WQH (WVG)

ORDER

vs.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY; SYSTEMS INTEGRATION

& MANAGEMENT WELFARE

BENEFIT PLAN; SYSTEMS

INTEGRATION & MANAGEMENT,

INC.,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is Plaintiff’s Second Application to File Documents Under

Seal or in the Alternative to Designate Documents as Not Confidential. (Doc. # 50).

BACKGROUND

On April 20, 2009, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint. (Doc. # 1).

Plaintiff’s action arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). Id.

at 1. On April 2, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued an order on the confidentiality of

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company’s (“MetLife”) proprietary business information which

Plaintiff sought in discovery. (Doc. # 35). The order, which ratifies a stipulation agreed upon

by Plaintiff and MetLife, holds that the documents at issue are confidential pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. at 2. The order states in part:

Case 3:09-cv-00829-WQH-WVG Document 56 Filed 07/28/10 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 - 09cv829 WQH (WVG)

If any party wishes to use Confidential Information during any motion practice

or trial of this action, they will submit such materials under seal, pursuant to the

Local Rules of this Court. Documents filed with the Court that are designated

Confidential or contain or discuss Confidential Information shall be filed under

seal and kept under seal absent a further order of the Court. Where possible,

however, only the Confidential portions of filings with the Court shall be filed

under seal. . . . 

No document shall be filed under seal unless counsel secures a court order

allowing the filing of a document under seal. An application to file a document

under seal shall be served on opposing counsel, and on the person or entity of

the document, if different from opposing counsel. If opposing counsel, or the

person or entity who has custody and control of the document, wishes to oppose

the application, he/she must contact the chambers of the judge who will rule on

the application to notify the judge’s staff that an opposition to the application

will be filed.

Id. at 2-3.

On June 16, 2010, Plaintiff filed an Application to File Documents Under Seal. (Doc.

# 42). On June 24, 2010, the Court denied the application without prejudice in an order which

states in part:

The Application identifies excerpts from three exhibits which Plaintiff wishes

to file under seal pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s April 2, 2010 Order of

Confidentiality. Id. Plaintiff did not provide the Court with copies of the

documents with this Court or provide any reasons to seal the documents in spite

of the strong presumption in favor of public access to court records. See Foltz

v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003).

(Doc. # 47).

On July 14, 2010, Plaintiff filed her Second Application to File Documents Under Seal

or in the Alternative to Designate Documents as Not Confidential. (Doc. # 50). Plaintiff

provided a copy of the documents at issue to the Court. The same day, Defendants filed an Ex

Parte Motion for Order Allowing Defendants and Counterclaimants to Respond. (Doc. # 51).

On July 15, 2010, the Court granted Defendants’ motion via minute entry and allowed it to file

a response on or before July 19, 2010. (Doc. # 52). On July 19, 2010, Defendants filed an

opposition to Plaintiff’s request for alternative relief designating the documents not

confidential. (Doc. # 53). 

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks permission to file internal documents related to MetLife’s claims

processing under seal pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s April 2, 2010 order. (Doc. # 50). In

Case 3:09-cv-00829-WQH-WVG Document 56 Filed 07/28/10 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 - 09cv829 WQH (WVG)

the alternative, Plaintiff requests that if the Court determines that the documents are not

confidential, that the Court make a specific finding that they are not subject to the previous

confidentiality order. Id. at 2.

Defendants state they do not oppose Plaintiff’s request to file the documents under seal,

however, they object to Plaintiff’s proposed alternative relief. (Doc. # 53 at 2). Defendants

contend they “have a due process right to be heard prior to public disclosure of their

confidential and proprietary information . . . .” Id. at 3. Defendants contend that the Plaintiff

has not made “any evidentiary showing . . . which contradicts the bases on which she

previously agreed and the Court previously ordered that the documents be ‘confidential’. . .

.” Id. Defendants contend Plaintiff’s proposed alternative relief must be denied pursuant to

the confidentiality order. Id. at 4.

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and County of

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Except for documents that are traditionally kept secret, there is

“a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79. “A party

seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption

by meeting the compelling reasons standard. That is, 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

judicial process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (citations and quotation marks omitted).

The presumed right to access to court proceedings and documents can be overcome “only be

an overriding right or interest ‘based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher

values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.’” Oregonian Publishing Co. v. United

States District Court, 920 F.3d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Press-Enterprise Co. v.

Superior Court, 446 U.S. 501, 510 (1985)).

The burden a party must bear to seal evidence attached to a dispositive motion is higher

Case 3:09-cv-00829-WQH-WVG Document 56 Filed 07/28/10 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 - 09cv829 WQH (WVG)

than the standard which must be met before a magistrate will issue a protective order

preserving the confidentiality of information during discovery. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180.

“A ‘good cause’ showing under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to

nondispositive motions,” but “[d]ifferent interests are at stake with the right of access [to

evidence in support of dispositive motions] than with Rule 26(c)[.] “[W]ith the former, the

private interests of the litigants are not the only weights on the scale,” and the court must also

consider the right of the public to access court records. Id. Therefore, “a ‘good cause’

showing alone will not suffice to fulfill the ‘compelling reasons’ standard that a party must

meet to rebut the presumption of access to dispositive pleadings and attachments.” Id.

The parties have failed to provide any basis for sealing the documents aside from

reference to the Magistrate Judge’s order and Defendants’ vague assertions that release of the

information would “harm MetLife’s competitive advantage in the marketplace.” (Doc. # 53

at 5). Although Plaintiff was the original moving party, the burden of persuasion is on

MetLife, as the party seeking to restrict the public’s access to the record, to establish that

“compelling reasons” justify sealing these documents. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.

 In the absence of “compelling reasons,” the Court cannot seal the documents. However, the

Court will not grant Plaintiff’s requested alternative relief of allowing Plaintiff to file the

documents as part of the public record without providing MetLife with an opportunity to meet

the burden required to seal the documents at issue.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

(1) Plaintiff’s Second Application to File Documents Under Seal or in the

Alternative to Designate Documents as Not Confidential (Doc. # 50) remains

pending before the Court. 

(2) MetLife may file a motion to seal the documents within twenty-one days of the

date of this order. MetLife shall obtain a hearing date from chambers prior to

filing the motion.

(3) In the event that MetLife fails to file a motion to seal, the Court will permit

Case 3:09-cv-00829-WQH-WVG Document 56 Filed 07/28/10 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 - 09cv829 WQH (WVG)

Plaintiff to file the documents as part of the public record.

DATED: July 28, 2010

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00829-WQH-WVG Document 56 Filed 07/28/10 Page 5 of 5