Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00124/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00124-9/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

ORDER RE: REQUESTS 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 74 Filed 08/31/16 Page 1 of 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

2

court is defendant’s request to file a number of exhibits to its 

motion for summary judgment under seal, (Docket No. 65), and 

plaintiffs’ request to file select portions of two exhibits to 

their cross-motion for summary judgment under seal or, 

alternatively, to redact the selected portions, (Docket No. 67). 

Plaintiffs also request that the court strike from the public 

docket defendant’s notice and motion for summary judgment, 

separate statement in support of its motion for summary judgment, 

and nearly all of the exhibits to defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment that defendant deemed non-privileged. (Docket No. 70.) 

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).) For all the 

reasons previously articulated in this court’s August 5, 2016

Order, the court must again deny the parties’ requests to seal 

and strike. 

Although plaintiffs contend that defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment and its supporting documents could be used 

against them in the underlying state court action, they once 

again fail to identify any specific information that could be 

damaging and to establish that their interest in sealing 

outweighs the public’s interests in disclosure and access. 

Further, defendant conceded at the August 29, 2016 hearing that 

it submitted its request to seal only because of plaintiffs’ 

general concerns regarding prejudice in the underlying state 

court action. 

Accordingly, the parties’ requests will be denied 

Case 1:15-cv-00124-WBS-SKO Document 74 Filed 08/31/16 Page 2 of 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

3

without prejudice. Before filing their opposition to defendant’s 

motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs may file both a full and 

redacted version of their opposition and an amended request to 

seal which makes clear exactly what might be harmful to them in 

the underlying state court action and should therefore be 

redacted. Plaintiffs must file this renewed request to seal by 

September 9, 2016.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ requests to 

seal (Docket Nos. 65, 67) and plaintiffs’ request that the court 

strike documents from the public docket (Docket No. 70) be, and 

the same hereby are, DENIED without prejudice. 

Dated: August 30, 2016

Case 1:15-cv-00124-WBS-SKO Document 74 Filed 08/31/16 Page 3 of 3