Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02670/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02670-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1330 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

Mark H. Goldberg, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Pacific Indemnity Company, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-2670-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Plaintiffs have filed a sealed Motion to Have Previously Filed Documents Placed

Under Seal (Doc. #503). Plaintiffs filed exhibits to their Comprehensive Statement of Facts

that contained personal identifiers in violation of the Administrative Policies and Procedures

Manual Section E.1. That Section provides:

Unless otherwise ordered by the court, parties must refrain from

including, or must partially redact where inclusion is necessary,

the

following personal identifiers from all pleadings and documents

filed

with the court, including exhibits thereto:

a. Social Security numbers. If an individual’s Social Security

number must be included in a pleading or document, only the

last four (4) digits of that number should be used.

b. Names of minor children. If the involvement of a minor child

must be mentioned, only the initials of that child should be

used.

c. Dates of birth. If an individual’s date of birth must be

included

in a pleading or document, only the year should be used.

d. Financial account numbers. If financial account numbers are

relevant, only the last four digits of these numbers should be

used.

e. Home address (Criminal Cases Only.) If a home address must

Case 2:05-cv-02670-JAT Document 514 Filed 10/24/07 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 -

be included in a document filed in a criminal case, only the city

and state should be listed.

Plaintiffs want this Court to seal completely Document Numbers 165, 167, 168, 169,

187, 212, 213, 215, 216, 225, 226, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 255, 268, 269, 270, 271,

272, 274, 275, 277, 278, 279, 280, 282, 283, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 295, 296,

297, 298, 300, 301, 302, 303, 309, 310, 311, 312, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 393 and 422

because they contain impermissible personal identifiers. The Ninth Circuit has a strong

presumption in favor of open access to judicial records. Kamakana v. City and County of

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted). The party seeking

to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption. Id. When

the party seeks to seal an exhibit to a motion for summary judgment, the party must offer

compelling reasons for sealing the document. Id. at 1180.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not offered compelling reasons for sealing the

exhibits. Obviously, compelling reasons exist for maintaining the privacy of an individual’s

social security number, etc.; hence Section E.1 of the Administrative Policies and Procedures

Manual. But that does not mean an entire exhibit should be sealed. The better course would

be for Plaintiffs to file redacted versions of all the exhibits they have moved to seal, then

move to strike the un-redacted versions of those exhibits. Plaintiffs have done this already

for some of the exhibits. The Court then could keep the record of this case open to the

public, but prevent the disclosure of private identifiers.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Plaintiffs’ Motion to Have Previously Filed Documents

Placed Under Seal (Doc. #503). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court does not need to file this

Order under seal.

DATED this 24th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02670-JAT Document 514 Filed 10/24/07 Page 2 of 2