Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05014/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05014-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 12:635 Breach of Insurance 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CORTHERA, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-05014-EMC 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL

Docket No. 44

I. INTRODUCTION

On November 20, 2015, Defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company filed its motion for 

partial summary judgment. Docket No. 45. Defendant also filed an administrative motion to seal 

certain portions of the motion and attached exhibits. Docket No. 44. Scottsdale’s motion to seal 

is opposed by Plaintiff Corthera, Inc. Docket No. 49. Having reviewed the parties’ filings, the 

Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant’s motion to file under seal.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Applicable Legal Standard

A party seeking to seal a judicial record submitted in connection with a dispositive motion 

bears the burden of establishing that “compelling reasons” support the sealing request. See 

Kamakuna v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006); see also 

O’Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., Case No. 13-cv-3826 EMC, 2015 WL 355496, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 

Jan. 27, 2015). More specifically, the party seeking to maintain records under seal must 

“articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general 

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure [of court records], such as the public 

interest in understanding the judicial process.” Kamakuna, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (internal 

Case 3:14-cv-05014-EMC Document 55 Filed 01/11/16 Page 1 of 4
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

For the Northern District of California

modifications and citations omitted). In order to grant a motion to seal documents when applying 

the “compelling reasons” standard, this Court must “base its decision on a compelling reason and 

articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1179 

(citations omitted). As a number of courts in this district have suggested, “only documents of 

exceptionally sensitive information” will be kept from the public. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. 

Co., Ltd., No. 11-cv-1846-LHK, 2012 WL 2913669, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2012) (emphasis 

added); see also Oracle Am. v. Google, Inc., No. 10-cv-3561-WHA, at ECF No. 540 (noting that 

sealing motions “will be denied outright” unless counsel identified “a limited amount of 

exceptionally sensitive information that truly deserves protection.”). 

B. Application of the Compelling Reasons Standard

The Court now applies the above-described standard to the discovery materials sought to 

be sealed in Scottsdale’s administrative motion.

1. Motion for Summary Judgment (Page 5)

Scottsdale seeks to redact the rate charged by Hogan Lovells LLP in the defense of the 

Florey action. As explained by numerous courts in this district, attorney rates are not privileged 

information that is sealable. See Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Package Co., No. C-13-159, 2014 

WL 6901744, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014) (denying motion to seal billing rates); Ferrington v. 

McAfee, Inc., Nos. 10-cv-1455-LHK, 11-cv-721-LHK, 2013 WL 3814474 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 

2013) (denying motion to seal billing records, including billing rates); Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of 

Am. v. Centex Homes, No. 11-cv-3638-SC, 2013 WL 707918, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2013) 

(noting that billing rates and number of hours billed was non-privileged information). The Court 

denies Scottsdale’s request to seal its motion for summary judgment. The motion for summary 

judgment shall be filed on the public docket with no redactions.

2. Kolari Declaration, Paragraph 8

Scottsdale seeks to redact the rate charged by Hogan Lovells in the defense of the Florey 

action. For the same reasons as above, the Court denies Scottsdale’s request to seal, and the 

Kolari declaration shall be filed on the public docket with no redactions.

Case 3:14-cv-05014-EMC Document 55 Filed 01/11/16 Page 2 of 4
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

For the Northern District of California

3. Kolari Declaration, Exhibits 8 and 12

Scottsdale seeks to redact the Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (Wilson Sonsini) 

invoices, including Plaintiff Thomas G. Wiggans’s contact information, the descriptions of the 

work performed, the billing rates, and Wilson Sonsini’s federal tax identification number and bank 

account information.

First, Scottsdale argues that the invoice contains Mr. Wiggans’s private contact 

information. Docket No. 44-1 (Harrison Dec.) at ¶ 4. However, the address is Mr. Wiggans’s 

business contact information at Demira, Inc. Second, Scottsdale argues that the descriptions of 

work performed is protected as attorney work product and/or by the attorney-client privilege. 

Scottsdale’s ability to invoke the privilege is highly questionable, as Scottsdale has no attorneyclient relationship with Wilson Sonsini because Mr. Wiggans was the client, not Scottsdale. See 

Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Morgan Drexen, Inc., Case No. SACV 13-1267-JLS (JEMx), 2014 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183721, at *11 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2014) (noting that the attorney-client 

privilege “is personal and can only be asserted by the holder of the privilege, which is the client,” 

and that therefore a non-client “has no protectable interest in preventing the disclosure of 

documents protected by attorney-client privilege”). Furthermore, Scottsdale has failed to explain 

with particularity which portions of the work descriptions are “exceptionally sensitive,” so as to 

warrant sealing. See Ferrington, 2013 WL 3814474, at *2 (denying motion to seal descriptions of 

work performed where party “failed to identify with particularity which portions of the 

descriptions are likely to reveal litigation strategy”). Third, Scottsdale argues that the billing rates 

are confidential, but as discussed above, attorney rates are generally not privileged and not 

sealable. Finally, Scottsdale argues that Wilson Sonsini’s federal tax identification number and 

bank account information is private and confidential. At least one court has found that bank 

account and routing numbers may be entitled to protection. See In re Oldco M Corp., 466 B.R. 

234, 238 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).

Therefore, the Court denies the motion to seal the Wilson Sonsini invoices, with the 

exception of the federal tax identification number and bank account information. Exhibits 8 and 

12 shall be filed on the public docket with the federal tax identification number and bank account 

Case 3:14-cv-05014-EMC Document 55 Filed 01/11/16 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

information redacted.

4. Kolari Declaration, Exhibit 11

Scottsdale seeks to redact reference to the rates for Gordon & Rees LLP and Wilson 

Sonsini at issue in this case. Harrison Dec. at ¶ 5. Scottsdale argues that these rates are 

confidential and proprietary. However, attorney rates are not privileged information that is 

sealable, and Scottsdale produces no facts or evidence establishing compelling reasons to seal this 

information. Exhibit 11 of the Kolari declaration must be filed on the public docket with no 

redactions.

5. Kolari Declaration, Exhibit 16

Scottsdale seeks to redact references to the rates for Gordon & Rees LLP, as well as an 

offer in compromise to resolve the dispute between Scottsdale and Plaintiffs. Again, attorney 

rates are not privileged information, and Scottsdale produces no compelling reason to seal this 

information. As to the alleged offer to compromise, Scottsdale cites no authority that an offer to 

compromise is privileged and should as a general matter be sealed. But see Own Capital, LLC v. 

Celebrity Suzuki of Rock Hill, LLC, Case No. 11-10109, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56224, at *9-12 

(S.D. Mich. May 25, 2011) (denying motion to strike or seal an offer to compromise). There is 

also a serious question regarding whether the exhibit even concerns an offer to compromise, rather 

than a typical claim correspondence. See Docket No. 49 at 4. The unredacted letter has also been 

filed by Corthera, and Scottsdale has not moved to strike the unredacted letter from the record. 

See Docket No. 43-1 (Osias Dec.), Exh. T. Given the lack of compelling reasons and the fact that 

the unredacted letter is already in the record, the Court denies the request to seal. Exhibit 16 of the 

Kolari declaration must be filed on the public docket with no redactions.

This order disposes of Docket No. 44.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05014-EMC Document 55 Filed 01/11/16 Page 4 of 4