Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01751/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01751-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

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

MILGARD MANUFACTURING, )

INCORPORATED, a Washington )

corporation, and MILGARD FAMILY )

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Washington )

limited partnership, )

) CIV. S-03-1751 GEB PAN 

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) ORDER DENYING SEALING

) REQUEST

ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a )

Delaware corporation; FIDELITY & )

GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY, an )

Iowa corporation; ILLINOIS UNION )

INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois )

corporation; MARYLAND CASUALTY )

COMPANY, a Maryland corporation, )

and ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE )

COMPANY, a New York corporation, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Milgard has submitted for in camera review Exhibit “B,”

attached to Paul W. Sugarman’s Declaration in Support of Milgard’s

Opposition to Admiral Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment,

which has been provisionally sealed pending judicial determination

whether permanent sealing is warranted. Milgard asserts that Exhibit

“B” should be permanently sealed because it is protected from public

Case 2:03-cv-01751-GEB-PAN Document 191 Filed 05/26/05 Page 1 of 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

2

disclosure by attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. 

(Milgard’s Opp’n Mem. at 26 n.18.)

In seeking this sealing, Milgard essentially asks the Court

to countenance a secret judicial proceeding with respect to Exhibit

“B.” When considering an unopposed sealing request, “the judge is the

primary representative of the public interest in the judicial process

and is duty-bound therefore to [consider whether the need exists] to

seal [any part of] the record.” Citizens First Nat’l Bank v.

Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 945 (7th Cir. 1999).

Milgard cites to Exhibit “B” in its Opposition Brief to

offer an alternative or additional basis for finding that Admiral was

participating in the defense of the Camenson Class Action before

August 17, 2004. (See Milgard’s Opp’n Mem. At 26:8-18 (arguing that

Lamore, Brazier, Riddle & Giampaoli LLP, in its capacity as carrierselected defense counsel, provided confidential privileged attorneyclient reports to Admiral).) But Milgard has not shown that its

proposed secretive proceeding involving Exhibit “B” is needed;

specifically, Milgard has not demonstrated that Exhibit “B” is the

exclusive means of establishing the fact(s) that Milgard asserts in

its Opposition to Admiral’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Therefore, the Clerk of the Court shall return Exhibit “B”

to Milgard’s counsel. See United States v. Baez-Alcaino, 718 F. Supp.

1503, 1506 (M.D. Fla. 1989) (explaining that when a judge decides in

camera that a document has not been shown appropriate for sealing, it

should be returned to the submitting party). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 26, 2005 /s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 2:03-cv-01751-GEB-PAN Document 191 Filed 05/26/05 Page 2 of 2