Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00861/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00861-2/pdf.json

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, 

a Delaware Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ENERGETIC LATH & PLASTER, INC., a 

California Corporation; ENERGETIC 

PAINTING AND DRYWALL, INC., a 

California Corporation; ROBERT CIMINI, 

an individual; GAIL CIMINI, an 

individual, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-00861-KJM-EFB 

ORDER 

AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 

On February 11, 2016, this court issued an order denying the unsupported request 

to seal by Lexington and the Ciminis. ECF No. 86. On February 12, 2016, Lexington filed a 

renewed notice of request to seal the same documents. ECF No. 87. The renewed request 

essentially repeats the same conclusory arguments from the previous request to seal, supported 

merely by quotations from the documents Lexington proposes to be sealed, and careless citations 

to the case law this court referenced in its previous order denying sealing. Indeed, the case law 

Lexington cites undermines its request. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 

Case 2:15-cv-00861-KJM-EFB Document 98 Filed 03/02/16 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

1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (“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.”); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136–38 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (existence of a confidentiality provision, without more, does not constitute good cause, 

let alone a compelling reason, to seal; exposure to liability in collateral suits is not a compelling 

reason to overcome the presumption of public access). In short, the request remains wholly 

unsupported and fails to meet the high threshold of “compelling reasons” for sealing of 

documents attached to dispositive motions. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. 

Lexington’s renewed request to seal is DENIED, resolving ECF No. 87. 

The court previously has cautioned that the filing of unsupported requests to seal 

renders a party subject to sanctions. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Lexington show cause 

within fourteen days of the date of this order why it should not pay sanctions in the amount of 

$250.00 for failure to follow this court’s orders. 

DATED: March 1, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-00861-KJM-EFB Document 98 Filed 03/02/16 Page 2 of 2