Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02302/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02302-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of 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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Dawn Young, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Liberty Mutual Group Incorporated, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-12-02302-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Before the Court are Defendant Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company’s Motion 

to Seal Portions of its Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Documentation, 

(Doc. 148), and Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal, (Doc. 153). The Court now rules on the 

motions. 

I. Background 

 The following brief recitation of facts is derived from the parties’ redacted filings 

and appears to be undisputed. Plaintiff was injured in the course and scope of her 

employment and Defendant is the workers’ compensation insurer for Plaintiff’s 

employer. Plaintiff sought treatment from several different doctors, and Defendant 

objected to at least one change of physician. These disputes resulted in delayed payment 

of Plaintiff’s workers’ compensation claims, which is the basis of Plaintiff’s bad faith and 

punitive damages claims in this Court. 

 Both parties’ motions seek to file under seal documents that contain “Plaintiff’s 

Case 2:12-cv-02302-JAT Document 168 Filed 12/05/14 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

medical history, conditions and treatment” in order to preserve Plaintiff’s “privacy 

interests.” 

II. Legal Standard 

 It has long been recognized that the public has a general right of access “to inspect 

and copy . . . judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

U.S. 589, 597 (1978). This right extends to all judicial records except those that have 

“traditionally been kept secret for important policy reasons,” namely grand jury 

transcripts and certain warrant materials. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 

F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally 

kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (citing 

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “[T]he 

strong presumption of access to judicial records applies fully to dispositive pleadings, 

including motions for summary judgment and related attachments,” because “the 

resolution of a dispute on the merits, whether by trial or summary judgment, is at the 

heart of the interest in ensuring the ‘public’s understanding of the judicial process and of 

significant public events.’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Valley Broadcasting 

Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Nev., 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986)). “A party 

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

presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.” Id. at 1178 (citing Foltz, 331 

F.3d at 1135). 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.” Id. 

at 1178–79 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 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, id. at 1183–84, and a court 

deciding to seal judicial records must “articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without 

relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 

1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). 

Case 2:12-cv-02302-JAT Document 168 Filed 12/05/14 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

 “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 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. 

(quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “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. 

III. Analysis 

 The Ninth Circuit has not specifically considered whether the sensitive nature of 

medical information justifies sealing court documents,1

 and neither party has cited any 

authority supporting such a holding. For the following reasons, the Court holds that 

general privacy concerns do not justify sealing medical records which are central to the 

issues in the case. 

 Privacy is no doubt important, but a general appeal to the private nature of a 

document cannot, without more, justify sealing it. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179; see 

also Krause v. Nev. Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 3776146, at *5 (D. Nev. July 16, 2013) 

(citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). Even embarrassing documents—which are perhaps 

quintessentially private—are not exempt from the public’s right to access. Id. (citing 

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)). Indeed, 

because the purpose of sealing documents is to hide them from public view, some interest 

in privacy or confidentiality is at the heart of nearly every request to seal documents. 

 Moreover, because Plaintiff’s case largely centers on her medical condition and 

various medical examiners’ opinion of it, to allow all materials containing Plaintiff’s 

medical information to be filed under seal “would effectively seal the entire case, and, 

 

1

 Notably, the Ninth Circuit in Kamakana affirmed the district court’s decision to 

unseal documents because the defendant “[had] not made the requisite showing of good cause except as to those documents containing Plaintiff’s medical records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1186. This is of little help here, however, given that the medical records were not at issue in that decision and that the Ninth Circuit afforded the trial judge below “considerable discretion.” Id. (citing Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1516 (9th Cir. 

1996)). 

Case 2:12-cv-02302-JAT Document 168 Filed 12/05/14 Page 3 of 5
- 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 

thus, would infringe too extensively on the public right to access court records.” Rock v. 

McHugh, 819 F. Supp. 2d 456, 476 (D. Md. 2011). Even a quick glance at the redacted 

versions of the parties’ briefs and supporting documents reveals that a large portion of the 

record relating to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment would be inaccessible to 

the public were the Court to grant the parties’ motions to file under seal. An invocation of 

general privacy rights cannot justify such a sweeping order. 

In short, given the centrality of Plaintiff’s medical condition to the case, Plaintiff’s 

privacy interests are not a compelling reason to seal the records from public access. 

Accordingly, the Court will not seal materials containing Plaintiff’s medical information. 

 Because the Court must deny the parties’ motions to file under seal, the Court 

cannot at this time rule on the merits of the Defendant’s underlying motion for summary 

judgment. Presumably the parties have attached to their briefs only those documents 

necessary to decide the particular motion at issue, and therefore the Court should not 

automatically exclude those documents by considering the redacted versions of the 

motions. Thus, the Court will deny Defendant’s motion for summary judgment without 

prejudice and permit the parties to re-brief Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in 

light of this Order. 

 Accordingly, within fourteen days from the date of this Order, Defendant shall 

submit its motion for summary judgment. Responsive and reply briefs will be due within 

the time period prescribed by Local Rule 7.2(c) and (d). Given that the Court will not 

allow documents to be filed under seal, when re-submitting their briefs, the parties must 

either (1) not use the documents they sought to file under seal in support of their filings 

or (2) file the documents not under seal.2

IV. Conclusion

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company’s 

 

2

 Additionally, if the parties believe that a document should be sealed solely because a non-relevant portion of that document contains confidential information, the 

parties should consider stipulating to the admissibility of a redacted version. 

Case 2:12-cv-02302-JAT Document 168 Filed 12/05/14 Page 4 of 5
- 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 

Motion to Seal Portions of its Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting 

Documentation, (Doc. 148), is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal, (Doc. 153), is 

DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, 

(Doc. 149), is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Docs. 151 and 154. These documents 

shall remain under seal. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the oral argument set for January 15, 2015 is 

VACATED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall comply with the procedure as 

set forth in this Order concerning the briefing of Defendant’s motion of summary 

judgment. Defendant shall file its motion for summary judgment within fourteen days 

from the date of this Order, with the response and reply due within the time period 

prescribed by Local Rule 7.2(c) and (d). 

 Dated this 4th day of December, 2014. 

Case 2:12-cv-02302-JAT Document 168 Filed 12/05/14 Page 5 of 5