Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01059/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01059-4/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Kory Dean Krieger, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 

Defendant.

No. CV11-1059-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Kory Dean Krieger has filed a motion to seal specific documents in this 

case. Doc. 70. The motion is unopposed. The Court will deny the motion. 

 Two standards govern requests to seal documents. “First, a ‘compelling reasons’ 

standard applies to most judicial records.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 

677-78 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 

1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135-36 

(9th Cir. 2003)). “[A] party seeking to seal judicial records must show that ‘compelling 

reasons supported by specific factual findings outweigh the general history of access and 

the public policies favoring disclosure.’” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (quoting Kamakana, 

447 F.3d at 1178). The second standard applies to “‘private materials unearthed during 

discovery,’ as such documents are not part of the judicial record.” Id. (quoting 

Kamanaka, 447 F.3d at 1180). The “good cause” standard set forth in Rule 26(c) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies to this category of documents. See id.; San Jose 

Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). For good 

Case 2:11-cv-01059-DGC Document 75 Filed 05/09/12 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

cause to exist under Rule 26(c), “the party seeking protection bears the burden of 

showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” Phillips 

v. G.M. Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130. The 

good cause standard applies to documents attached to non-dispositive motions because 

those documents are often “‘unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying 

cause of action.’” Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1213 (citation omitted). Documents attached to 

dispositive motions, by contrast, are governed by the compelling reasons standard. See 

San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1102; Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136. 

 Plaintiff asks the Court to seal the following documents: Docs. 1, 19-3, 31-2, 45, 

47, 48, 50, 55, 62, and 67. Plaintiff’s sole argument is that these documents include 

Plaintiff’s “sensitive medical and personal information.” Doc. 71, at 1. Such generalized 

statements supporting sealing are inadequate; “a party must articulate specific facts to 

justify sealing, and must do so with respect to each item sought to be sealed.” B2B CFO 

Partners, LLC v. Kaufman, No. CV 09-2158-PHX-JAT, 2010 WL 2104257, at *1 

(D. Ariz. May 25, 2010) (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183-84 (“Simply mentioning a 

general category of privilege, without any further elaboration or specific linkage with the 

documents, does not satisfy the burden.”)). Plaintiff put his medical condition at issue 

when he filed for benefits. See Clark v. Schriro, No. CV 06-0085-TUC-FRZ, 2007 WL 

2750667, at *4 n.5 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2007). The mere assertion that Plaintiff considers 

medical and personal information sensitive does not amount to a compelling reason to 

seal. See TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. v. Avago Techs. Ltd., No. CV 09-1531-PHX-JAT, 

2011 WL 4947343, at *4 (D. Ariz. Oct. 18, 2011). 

 The Court must “‘conscientiously balance[] the competing interests’ of the public 

and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d 

at 1179 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135) (alteration in original). “In general, 

‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify 

sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for 

improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 

Case 2:11-cv-01059-DGC Document 75 Filed 05/09/12 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. (quoting Nixon v. 

Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 498 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production 

of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further 

litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. Plaintiff has 

not shown that his interest in sealing outweighs the “strong presumption in favor of 

access to court records.” Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995). 

 Courts in this District have permitted movants who demonstrated a good faith 

effort to carefully redact exhibits an opportunity to supplement their motion to seal in 

order to meet the standards set forth by the Ninth Circuit. See TriQuint, 2011 WL 

4947343, at *4. Plaintiff, however, has made no previous effort to protect the 

information he now claims to be sensitive. Plaintiff has openly filed documents 

pertaining to his medical condition, sometimes as separate exhibits (e.g., Doc. 1), and 

other times appended to the motions themselves (e.g., Docs. 45, 48, 50, 55). Plaintiff has 

not provided the Court with the specific information that he seeks to seal.1

 See TriQuint, 

2011 WL 4947343, at *4 (“TriQuint cannot leave it to the Court to puzzle out which 

information it thinks relates to lost profits and then to apply TriQuint’s generalized 

assertions of compelling reasons to justify sealing that information.”). Nor has Plaintiff 

presented compelling reasons to seal the identified documents in their entirety. See B2B, 

2010 WL 2104257, at *1 (“Plaintiffs make no effort to comply with Kamakana in that 

they do not explain item by item why an exhibit or argument must be sealed. Indeed, 

they seek to seal the entire motion, which clearly contains law and argument that should 

not be sealed.”). 

 As the Kamakana court noted, it is not this Court’s burden to justify unsealing a 

document; it is the party’s burden to overcome the presumption of access to the courts. 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1181-82. Plaintiff has failed to meet this burden. 

 

1

 Even if Plaintiff were afforded an opportunity to supplement his motion by identifying the specific information he seeks to seal, the majority of the documents at 

issue were filed in such a way that makes it impossible for the Court to seal isolated portions of the documents. 

Case 2:11-cv-01059-DGC Document 75 Filed 05/09/12 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to seal (Doc. 70) is 

denied. 

 Dated this 9th day of May, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-01059-DGC Document 75 Filed 05/09/12 Page 4 of 4