Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01968/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01968-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Anthony H. Jones, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Colorado Casualty Insurance Company, et 

al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-12-01968-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Before the Court are Defendant Colorado Casualty Insurance Company’s Motion 

to Seal Portions of its Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Documentation, 

(Doc. 98), Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal, (Doc. 105), and Defendant’s Colorado Casualty 

Insurance Company’s Motion to Seal Portions of its Reply Brief in Support of its Motion 

for Summary Judgment and Supporting Documentation, (Doc. 112). Additionally, the 

parties have filed a proposed protective order, unaccompanied by a formal motion. 

(Doc. 97). The Court now rules on the motions. 

I. Background 

 The following facts, gleaned from the redacted versions of the parties’ briefs and 

supporting documents, appear to be agreed upon by the parties. This case arises out of an 

injury Plaintiff sustained in the course and scope of his employment. Defendant is the 

Case 2:12-cv-01968-JAT Document 115 Filed 12/03/14 Page 1 of 8
- 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 

workers’ compensation insurer for Plaintiff’s employer. Plaintiff’s treating physician 

recommended a certain surgery, but an independent medical examination (“IME”) 

commissioned by Defendant recommended conservative treatment. After undergoing the 

treatment, Defendant’s treating physician once again recommended surgery. Defendant 

then sent the same doctor who performed the first IME to re-evaluate Plaintiff. This 

second IME recommended a less invasive—and less costly—alternative surgery. 

Defendant then commissioned another IME by a different doctor, which recommended 

no surgery and concluded that Plaintiff was stationary. About a month later, Defendant 

received phone calls from people claiming to be Plaintiff’s family members reporting that 

Plaintiff had not been injured at work and was lying about his claim. Defendant then 

terminated Plaintiff’s benefits. Plaintiff objected to this, and Defendant commissioned yet 

another IME, pursuant to which Defendant rescinded the termination and authorized the 

surgery recommended by the final IME. The essence of Plaintiff’s claims is that 

Defendant acted unreasonably in delaying the surgery and denying Plaintiff’s claim. 

 The motions to seal filed by both parties are based upon the same rationale: that 

some of the material submitted relating to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment 

contain Plaintiff’s “confidential, sensitive, and private medical information relating to his 

medical history, conditions and treatment arising out of his workers’ compensation 

claim,” and that some materials contain “certain proprietary, trade secret information 

pertaining to Colorado Casualty and/or its affiliates.” 

II. Legal Standard 

 It has long been recognized that the public has a general right of access “to inspect 

and copy . . . judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

U.S. 589, 597 (1978). This right extends to all judicial records except those that have 

“traditionally been kept secret for important policy reasons,” namely grand jury 

transcripts and certain warrant materials. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 

F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally 

kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (citing 

Case 2:12-cv-01968-JAT Document 115 Filed 12/03/14 Page 2 of 8
- 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 

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “[T]he 

strong presumption of access to judicial records applies fully to dispositive pleadings, 

including motions for summary judgment and related attachments,” because “the 

resolution of a dispute on the merits, whether by trial or summary judgment, is at the 

heart of the interest in ensuring the ‘public’s understanding of the judicial process and of 

significant public events.’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Valley Broadcasting 

Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Nev., 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986)). “A party 

seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the burden of overcoming this strong 

presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.” Id. at 1178 (citing Foltz, 331 

F.3d at 1135). The party 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.” Id. 

at 1178–79 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Generalized statements 

supporting sealing are inadequate; a party must articulate specific facts to justify sealing, 

and must do so with respect to each item sought to be sealed, id. at 1183–84, and a court 

deciding to seal judicial records must “articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without 

relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 

1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). 

 “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. 

(quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “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. 

Accordingly, a party’s allegations that material is “confidential” or “business 

information” are insufficient to justify sealing court records containing such material 

unless the party proves the existence of compelling reasons for sealing. Krause v. Nev. 

Case 2:12-cv-01968-JAT Document 115 Filed 12/03/14 Page 3 of 8
- 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 

Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 3776146, at *5 (D. Nev. July 16, 2013) (citing Kamakana, 447 

F.3d at 1179). Moreover, because “confidentiality alone does not transform business 

information into a trade secret,” a party alleging trade secret protection as a basis for 

sealing court records must show that the business information is in fact a trade secret. 

St. Clair v. Nellcor Puritan Bennett LLC, 2011 WL 5335559, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 7, 

2011). Thus, only in extremely limited circumstances will confidential information 

actually merit the sealing of court records. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182 (finding that 

conclusory statements about the content of documents did not provide “compelling 

reasons sufficiently specific to bar the public access to the documents”). 

III. Analysis 

 A. Plaintiff’s Medical Information 

 The Ninth Circuit has not specifically considered whether the sensitive nature of 

medical information justifies sealing court documents,1

 and neither party has cited any 

authority supporting such a holding. For the following reasons, the Court holds that 

general privacy concerns do not justify sealing medical records which are central to the 

issues in the case. 

 Privacy is no doubt important, but a general appeal to the private nature of a 

document cannot, without more, justify sealing it. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Even 

embarrassing documents—which are perhaps quintessentially private—are not exempt 

from the public’s right to access. Id. (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 

F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)). Indeed, because the purpose of sealing documents is to 

hide them from public view, some interest in privacy or confidentiality is at the heart of 

nearly every request to seal documents. 

 Moreover, because Plaintiff’s case largely centers on his medical condition and 

 

1

 Notably, the Ninth Circuit in Kamakana affirmed the district court’s decision to 

unseal documents because the defendant “[had] not made the requisite showing of good cause except as to those documents containing Plaintiff’s medical records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1186. This is of little help here, however, given that the medical records were not at issue in that decision and that the Ninth Circuit afforded the trial judge below “considerable discretion.” Id. (citing Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1516 (9th Cir. 

1996)). 

Case 2:12-cv-01968-JAT Document 115 Filed 12/03/14 Page 4 of 8
- 5 - 

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 

various medical examiners’ opinion of it, to allow all materials containing Plaintiff’s 

medical information to be filed under seal “would effectively seal the entire case, and, 

thus, would infringe too extensively on the public right to access court records.” Rock v. 

McHugh, 819 F. Supp. 2d 456, 476 (D. Md. 2011). Even a quick glance at the redacted 

versions of the parties’ briefs and supporting documents reveals that a large portion of the 

record relating to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment would be inaccessible to 

the public were the Court to grant the parties’ motions to file under seal. An invocation of 

general privacy rights cannot justify such a sweeping order. 

 In short, given the centrality of Plaintiff’s medical condition to the case, Plaintiff’s 

privacy interests are not a compelling reason to seal the records from public access. 

Accordingly, the Court will not seal materials containing Plaintiff’s medical information. 

B. Defendant’s Trade Secrets 

 As noted above, protecting trade secrets constitutes a “compelling reason” to seal 

a document. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. The party asserting such protection, however, 

must show that the business information is in fact a trade secret. St. Clair v. Nellcor 

Puritan Bennett LLC, 2011 WL 5335559, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 7, 2011). Generalized 

assertions that something is protected will not do. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183–84. 

 Here, Defendant has failed to show that the documents it seeks to seal contain 

protectable trade secrets or even to specify which documents contain trade secrets. As 

such, the Court is unable to make the factual findings necessary to determine whether 

sealing is appropriate with regard to Defendant’s trade secrets. 

IV. Re-Briefing 

Because the Court must deny the parties’ motions to file under seal, the Court 

cannot at this time rule on the merits of the Defendant’s underlying motion for summary 

judgment. Presumably the parties have attached to their pleadings only those documents 

necessary to decide the particular motion at issue, and therefore the Court should not 

automatically exclude those documents by considering the redacted versions of the 

motions. Thus, the Court will permit the parties to redo their motions and supporting 

Case 2:12-cv-01968-JAT Document 115 Filed 12/03/14 Page 5 of 8
- 6 - 

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 

filings so that they have an opportunity to present the necessary evidence. 

 Accordingly, the Court will set two deadlines: one for briefing motions to file 

under seal, and a later deadline for briefing Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 

 Within fourteen days from the date of this Order, Defendant may file a motion to 

file under seal that identifies every document that it will use in support of its filings 

concerning Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (“filings” includes motions, 

responses, replies, statements of fact, exhibits, and so forth) and that Defedant desires to 

be filed under seal. For each such document desired to be filed under seal, the motion to 

file under seal shall specify with particularity the compelling reasons why such document 

should be sealed. Further, Defendant shall explain in its motion to file under seal how 

each document it seeks to seal will be used in its motion for summary judgment and how 

it expects the Court to treat the sealed materials in its opinion ruling on the Defendant’s 

motion for summary judgment. Additionally, Defendant shall explain in its motion to file 

under seal whether the Ninth Circuit honors the sealed status of opinions of a district 

court below. Finally, in its motion to seal, Defendant shall explain its position regarding 

the status of the documents it seeks to seal in the event that Defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment is denied and those documents are marked as exhibits and entered 

into evidence in a public trial. 

 The Court will only allow arguments in Defendant’s motion to file under seal 

relating to the documents purportedly containing trade secrets. As explained above, 

Plaintiff’s medical information will not be sealed, and therefore no further briefing is 

warranted on that matter. Plaintiff may, but is not required to, file a response to the 

motion to file under seal in which it may argue why such documents should not be 

sealed. No replies will be permitted. 

 The Court will rule on the motions to file under seal, and for each document 

sought to be filed under seal, will determine whether sealing is justified. If the Court 

declines to permit a document to be filed under seal, the party seeking to use the 

document must either (1) not use the document in support of its filings or (2) file the 

Case 2:12-cv-01968-JAT Document 115 Filed 12/03/14 Page 6 of 8
- 7 - 

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 

document not under seal.2 If the Court permits a document to be filed under seal, 

Defendant may file it under seal at the appropriate time in the course of briefing 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 

 At the time that the Court rules on the motion to file under seal, the Court will set 

a briefing schedule for the parties’ new versions of their filings relating to Defendant’s 

motion for summary judgment. 

VI. Protective Order 

Because it was filed after the close of discovery in this case, the parties’ proposed 

protective order is rejected as untimely. 

IV. Conclusion 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Colorado Casualty Insurance Company’s 

Motion to Seal Portions of its Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting 

Documentation, (Doc. 98), is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal, (Doc. 105), is 

DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Colorado Casualty Insurance 

Company’s Motion to Seal Portions of its Reply Brief in Support of its Motion for 

Summary Judgment and Supporting Documentation, (Doc. 112), is DENIED. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Docs. 99, 103, 104, 109, 110, and 111. 

These documents shall remain under seal. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ proposed protective order, 

(Doc. 97), is REJECTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the oral argument scheduled for December 17, 

2014, (Doc. 114), is VACATED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall comply with the Court’s 

 

2

 Additionally, if the parties believe that a document should be sealed solely because a non-relevant portion of that document contains confidential information, the 

parties should consider stipulating to the admissibility of a redacted version. 

Case 2:12-cv-01968-JAT Document 115 Filed 12/03/14 Page 7 of 8
- 8 - 

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 

procedure as set forth in this Order concerning the filing of Defendant’s motion to file 

under seal. Defendant shall file its motions to file under seal within fourteen days from 

the date of this Order, with any responses due within the time period prescribed by Local 

Rule 7.2(c). 

 Dated this 3rd day of December, 2014. 

Case 2:12-cv-01968-JAT Document 115 Filed 12/03/14 Page 8 of 8