Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03415/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03415-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Conversion

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREAT LAKES INSURANCE SE,

Plaintiff,

v.

FTL RISK INNOVATIONS LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-03415-TSH 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

FILE UNREDACTED COMPLANT 

UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 5

I. INTRODUCTION

This action involves a dispute between Plaintiff Great Lakes Insurance SE (“Great Lakes”) 

and Defendant FTL Risk Innovations LLC (“FTL”) over payment of premiums pursuant to an 

underlying insurance policy Great Lakes issued to Equidate Holdings, LLC (the “Insured”). 

Compl., ¶¶ 8, 12-17, ECF No. 1. On June 14, 2019, Great Lakes filed the present complaint 

against FTL with an administrative motion to file the an unredacted version of the complaint under 

seal. Mot., ECF No. 5. Having considered the motion and relevant legal authority, the Court 

GRANTS Great Lakes’s motion. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

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

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

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

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

Case 3:19-cv-03415-TSH Document 10 Filed 07/19/19 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.

However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain 

mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm 

their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. 

Cir. 2013). 

Parties moving to seal documents must also comply with the procedures established by 

Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that 

establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise 

entitled to protection under the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only 

of sealable material . . . .” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). 

III. DISCUSSION

Great Lakes moves to seal parts of its complaint referring to specific terms of the policy 

because it contends that disclosure of the information could cause competitive harm. Mot. at 3. 

Great Lakes designated the information sought to be redacted as confidential and filed a 

declaration from Jamie Cheng, its counsel, in support of sealing the material. Cheng Decl., ECF 

No. 5-1. Because the sealing motion relates to the filing of a complaint, which is more than 

tangentially related to the merits of the case, the instant motion is resolved under the compelling 

reasons standard. In re Google Inc. Gmail Litig., 2013 WL 5366963, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 

2013) (“The Ninth Circuit has not explicitly stated the standard—good cause or compelling 

reasons—that applies to the sealing of a complaint, but this Court and other courts have held that 

the compelling reasons standard applies because a complaint is the foundation of a lawsuit.” 

(collecting cases)). 

Here, the Court finds that Great Lakes has stated compelling reasons for sealing portions of 

the complaint and has narrowly tailored its request. As to compelling reasons, “[t]he specific 

Case 3:19-cv-03415-TSH Document 10 Filed 07/19/19 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

terms [of the policy], including premium, transaction volume, limitations and other economics and 

conditions of the insurance solution” that Great Lakes seeks to seal are proprietary information. 

Cheng Decl. ¶ 3; see also In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding 

that “pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms” are trade secrets that 

is appropriate for sealing). Further, Great Lakes and the Insured have an “exclusive and long-term 

partnership.” Cheng Decl., Ex. B, ECF No. 5-3. Publicly disseminating the terms of the policy 

would allow other insurers to develop similar insurance policies and threaten the exclusivity of 

Great Lakes’s relationship with the Insured. See, e.g., Century Aluminum Co. v. AGCS Marine 

Ins. Co., 2012 WL 13042825, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2012) (granting motion to seal document 

containing “confidential information regarding the claim file of an assured . . . not involved in this 

litigation” and holding that “competitive harm may result to [the assured] if this document is 

publicly-disseminated, as it will reveal confidential business information and strategies that 

Defendant employs with respect to issuance of its insurance policies”).

As to whether the request is narrowly tailored, Great Lakes redacted only the information 

as to the terms of the policy and the premiums that are confidential, as required by Local Rule 79-

5. It has also excluded any confidential documents and information that are not necessary to its 

claims, such as a copy of the policy itself. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Great Lakes has articulated compelling 

reasons to seal certain portions of the complaint and the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored 

to remove only the confidential information. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Great Lakes’s

Administrative Motion to Seal the unredacted version of the complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2019

THOMAS S. HIXSON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-03415-TSH Document 10 Filed 07/19/19 Page 3 of 3