Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00546/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00546-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

YVONNE FOWKES, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, and DOES 1 to 100, 

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-00546-KJM-CKD 

ORDER 

Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company requests to file the 

administrative record under seal in support of its cross-motion for judgment, or alternatively, to 

allow the parties to submit amended trial briefs citing to the redacted documents from the 

administrative record that plaintiff Yvonne Fowkes previously attached to her complaint. ECF 

No. 21; see Compl., ECF No. 1. Defendant’s requests are unopposed. As explained below, the 

court DENIES defendant’s request to seal but GRANTS defendant’s request for the submission of 

amended trial briefs citing to the redacted documents. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD 

“[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 

records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns,

435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). While “the right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute,” 

Case 2:15-cv-00546-KJM-CKD Document 25 Filed 05/11/16 Page 1 of 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

2

access in civil cases is properly denied for clearly justifiable reasons: to protect against 

“gratif[ication of] private spite or promot[ion of] public scandal,” or to preclude court dockets 

from becoming “reservoirs of libelous statements,” or “sources of business information that might 

harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Id. at 598 (citations omitted). As the Ninth Circuit 

instructs, a “strong presumption in favor of access” to the record governs in a court of law unless 

the case or a part of it qualifies for one of the relatively few exceptions “traditionally kept secret,” 

with secrecy allowed for good reasons. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 

1135 (9th Cir. 2003). “Those who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to 

dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that ‘compelling reasons’ support 

secrecy.” Kamakana v. City and Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing 

Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). The compelling-reasons standard applies even if contents of the 

dispositive motion or its attachments have previously been filed under seal or are covered by a 

generalized protective order, including a discovery phase protective order. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 

1136.

The Eastern District of California has adopted rules to clarify procedures for 

parties’ compliance with the law reviewed above. Local Rule 141 provides that documents may 

be sealed only by a written order of the court after a particularized request to seal has been made. 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 141(a). A mere request to seal is not enough under the local rules. Local Rule 

141(b) expressly requires that “[t]he ‘Request to Seal Documents’ shall set forth the statutory or 

other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to 

be permitted access to the document, and all relevant information.” The court’s Standing Order, 

available on its web page, emphasizes the requirement that parties comply with the law and the 

rules in making any sealing request, which they should do lightly and only rarely if at all. See

ECF No. 5-1 at 6. 

II. DISCUSSION 

Defendant requests to file under seal the administrative record pertaining to 

plaintiff’s claim for long-term disability benefits under the subject employee welfare benefit plan, 

because there are 2,146 pages of documents in the administrative record, and the majority of the 

Case 2:15-cv-00546-KJM-CKD Document 25 Filed 05/11/16 Page 2 of 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

3

pages “contain personal and private information relating to Plaintiff, including numerous 

references to her personal data identifiers, such as her Social Security Number, date of birth and 

home address, as well as financial information.” ECF No. 21 at 2. “Given the size of the Record 

and the substantial amount of private and personal information contained therein,” defendant 

contends “it would be extremely burdensome to provide the Court with redacted documents.” Id.

Moreover, plaintiff attached redacted copies of the pertinent documents to the complaint, and, 

defendant argues, “requir[ing] MetLife to provide the Court with another redacted copy would be 

an unnecessary expenditure of time and resources and would cause MetLife to incur not 

insubstantial fees for attorney and paralegal time.” Id.

The court finds defendant has not met the requirements for sealing provided by the 

Local Rules and the Ninth Circuit. Specifically, defendant has not met the high standard of 

articulating “compelling reasons” for sealing documents relied upon in a dispositive motion, see

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178, and has not set forth the statutory or other authority for sealing in 

these circumstances, as required by Local Rule 141(b). 

However, the court finds defendant has articulated “compelling reasons” for 

allowing the parties to cite to the redacted documents attached to the complaint. The court finds 

redaction better protects the public’s right to access judicial records here than would sealing the 

entire administrative record. The information redacted from those documents appears to be 

limited to private and personal health and financial information and references to plaintiff’s 

personal data identifiers. Accordingly, the redactions are narrowly tailored to protect plaintiff’s 

private information. Cf. Pension Plan for Pension Trust Fund for Operating Eng’rs v. Giacalone 

Elec. Servs., Inc, No. 13-02338, 2015 WL 3956143, at *10 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2015) (allowing 

parties to redact personal identifying information and private information regarding non-parties 

from documents attached to dispositive motions in ERISA action). 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES defendant’s request to file the 

administrative record under seal. However, the court GRANTS defendant’s request to allow the 

parties to submit amended trial briefs citing to the redacted documents attached to the complaint. 

Case 2:15-cv-00546-KJM-CKD Document 25 Filed 05/11/16 Page 3 of 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

4

The parties shall submit amended trial briefs within fourteen (14) days of the date this order is 

filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 10, 2016. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-00546-KJM-CKD Document 25 Filed 05/11/16 Page 4 of 4