Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-05158/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-05158-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

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

SARABJIT SANGHA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CIGNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 

OF NEW YORK,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-05158-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 29

This matter involved the review of a denial of long-term disability benefits under a group 

insurance plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). 

See Dkt. No. 37 (discussing factual background). In support of motions for judgment as a matter 

of law, the parties cited and relied on Plaintiff Sarabjit Sangha’s Claim File with Defendant Cigna 

Life Insurance Company of New York (“CLICNY”). In anticipation of those motions, Plaintiff 

filed the pending administrative motion to file under seal the CLICNY Claim File, which contains

a “voluminous amount of private medical information in the record that is irrelevant to the issues 

in [this action].” Dkt. No. 29. No party in this action sought to seal any information referenced in 

the parties’ briefs or the Court’s opinions. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 

documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 

v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from 

the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial 

records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in 

favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotation omitted). To 

Case 4:17-cv-05158-HSG Document 41 Filed 02/15/19 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

overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a 

dispositive motion 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” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–

79 (quotation omitted). “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. at 1179 

(quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (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.

The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to 

keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal 

certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5 

supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a 

document or portions of it under seal must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are 

privileged, 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.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). 

Records attached to nondispositive motions, however, are not subject to the strong 

presumption of access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Because such records “are often 

unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving to seal 

must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Id. at 1179–80 (quotation omitted). This requires only a “particularized showing” that “specific 

prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. 

Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). 

“Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will 

not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation 

Case 4:17-cv-05158-HSG Document 41 Filed 02/15/19 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

omitted).

II. ANALYSIS

The Claim File Plaintiff seeks to seal is more than tangentially related to the underlying 

cause of action, and the Court therefore applies the “compelling reasons” standard. The Claim 

File, however, consists of highly sensitive and otherwise confidential medical records and 

documents. And the Court finds that the public’s interest in disclosure of this information is low, 

because information in the Claim File germane to the merits of this case has not been sealed. The 

Court thus finds that the sensitive nature and intended confidentiality of this information meets the 

compelling reasons standard. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

 2/15/2019

Case 4:17-cv-05158-HSG Document 41 Filed 02/15/19 Page 3 of 3