Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00829/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00829-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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 - 09cv829 WQH (WVG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHEILA WATTS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv829 WQH (WVG)

ORDER

vs.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY; SYSTEMS INTEGRATION

& MANAGEMENT WELFARE

BENEFIT PLAN; SYSTEMS

INTEGRATION & MANAGEMENT,

INC.,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are Plaintiff’s Second Application to File Documents

Under Seal or, in the Alternative, to Designate Documents as Not Confidential (ECF No. 50)

and Defendants’ Motion to Maintain Status of Confidential Documents Previously Produced

to Plaintiff Under Confidentiality Order (ECF No. 60). 

BACKGROUND

On April 20, 2009, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint. (ECF No. 1).

Plaintiff’s action arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). Id.

at 1. On April 2, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued an order on the confidentiality of

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company’s (“MetLife”) proprietary business information which

Plaintiff sought in discovery. (ECF No. 35). The order, which ratifies a stipulation agreed

Case 3:09-cv-00829-WQH-WVG Document 68 Filed 10/07/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 09cv829 WQH (WVG)

upon by Plaintiff and MetLife, orders that the documents at issue are confidential pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. at 2. The order states in part:

If any party wishes to use Confidential Information during any motion practice

or trial of this action, they will submit such materials under seal, pursuant to the

Local Rules of this Court. Documents filed with the Court that are designated

Confidential or contain or discuss Confidential Information shall be filed under

seal and kept under seal absent a further order of the Court. Where possible,

however, only the Confidential portions of filings with the Court shall be filed

under seal. . . . 

No document shall be filed under seal unless counsel secures a court order

allowing the filing of a document under seal. An application to file a document

under seal shall be served on opposing counsel, and on the person or entity of

the document, if different from opposing counsel. If opposing counsel, or the

person or entity who has custody and control of the document, wishes to oppose

the application, he/she must contact the chambers of the judge who will rule on

the application to notify the judge’s staff that an opposition to the application

will be filed.

Id. at 2-3.

On June 16, 2010, Plaintiff filed an Application to File Documents Under Seal which

was denied on June 24, 2010. (ECF Nos. 42-43). On July 14, 2010, Plaintiff filed her Second

Application to File Documents Under Seal or in the Alternative to Designate Documents as

Not Confidential. (ECF No. 50). On July 19, 2010, Defendants filed an opposition to

Plaintiff’s request for alternative relief designating the documents not confidential. (ECF No.

53). 

On July 28, 2010, this Court issued an Order and held:

The parties have failed to provide any basis for sealing the documents aside

from reference to the Magistrate Judge's order and Defendants' vague

assertions that release of the information would ‘harm MetLife's competitive

advantage in the marketplace.’ . . . In the absence of ‘compelling reasons,’ the

Court cannot seal the documents. However, the Court will not grant Plaintiff's

requested alternative relief of allowing Plaintiff to file the documents as part

of the public record without providing MetLife with an opportunity to meet the

burden required to seal the documents at issue.

(ECF No. 56 at 4) (citations omitted). 

On August 18, 2010, Defendants’ filed a Motion to Maintain Status of Confidential

Documents Previously Produced to Plaintiff Under Confidentiality Order. (ECF No. 60).

Plaintiff did not file an opposition. 

Case 3:09-cv-00829-WQH-WVG Document 68 Filed 10/07/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 - 09cv829 WQH (WVG)

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks permission to file internal documents related to MetLife’s claims

processing under seal pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s April 2, 2010 order. (ECF No. 50).

In the alternative, Plaintiff requests that the Court make a specific finding that they are not

subject to the previous confidentiality order if the Court determines that the documents are not

confidential. Id. at 2.

Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s request to file the documents under seal; however,

they object to Plaintiff’s proposed alternative relief. (ECF No. 53 at 3). “[D]efendants seek

an order extending and maintaining the protected status currently applicable to certain

documents and information that were provided to plaintiff in reliance on this Court’s Order of

Confidentiality . . . in response to a discovery order of January 28, 2010 . . . .” (ECF No. 60-1

at 2) (citations omitted). Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s proposed Exhibits 6-8 “reflect

and constitute excerpts of zealously guarded confidential, proprietary and trade secret

information, which if publicly disclosed would cause MetLife competitive harm in the

marketplace.” Id. at 5. 

Exhibit 6 contains four pages of MetLife’s Claim Management Guidelines which “is

the product of extensive investments of time and effort by MetLife, is securely maintained, and

is accessible only to MetLife employees with proper clearance.” Id. Defendants contend that

access to the Claim Management Guidelines, “by third parties would allow them, and

MetLife’s competitors, to utilize MetLife’s claim administration procedures and/or to modify

their own procedures to match MetLife’s, but without investing the considerable time and

resources that were invested by MetLife . . . .” Id. at 6. Defendants contend that “by a

piecemeal erosion of the protection to which MetLife is entitled under the law, [MetLife]

would find itself unable to enforce the proprietary interests it legitimately possesses, and its

resources would benefit its competitors.” Id. at 8. 

Exhibit 7 “is part of a proprietary and confidential business contract between MetLife

and an outside third party vendor, MCN.” Id. at 9. The contract “is not provided to

independent physician consultants by MetLife, but is part of a contract reflecting MetLife’s

Case 3:09-cv-00829-WQH-WVG Document 68 Filed 10/07/10 Page 3 of 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

- 4 - 09cv829 WQH (WVG)

confidential business relationship with a vendor, and MetLife’s expectations of the vendor

(which retains physicians to provide certain services).” Id. MetLife contends that the contract

“contains confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information regarding MetLife’s internal

decision-making processes and its approach to claim administration.” Id. at 6. 

Exhibit 8 contains Defendants’ supplemental responses to three interrogatories which

“reveal the business costs of MetLife as to moneys paid by MetLife to a third party vendor for

independent physician consultant reviews over a set time period, as well as the numbers of

claims referred to a particular third party vendor for a set time period.” Id. at 10. Defendants

contend that these responses should be protected from disclosure because they contain

“confidential tax information regarding third parties[]” and “because they detail MetLife’s

internal business decisions and proprietary work product regarding the administration of

disability claims generally, not just plaintiff’s claim in particular.” Id. Defendants also contend

that the responses contain “[i]nformation as to MetLife’s costs of doing business, which

directly affect its pricing structure and therefore its ability to compete in the marketplace, are

competitively sensitive.” Id. at 6. 

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and County of

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Except for documents that are traditionally kept secret, there is

“a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79. 

“A party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the burden of overcoming this

strong presumption by meeting the compelling reasons standard. That is, 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.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (citations and

quotation marks omitted). The presumed right to access to court proceedings and documents

can be overcome “only be an overriding right or interest ‘based on findings that closure is

Case 3:09-cv-00829-WQH-WVG Document 68 Filed 10/07/10 Page 4 of 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

- 5 - 09cv829 WQH (WVG)

essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.’” Oregonian

Publishing Co. v. United States District Court, 920 F.2d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting

Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 446 U.S. 501, 510 (1985)).

“Under the compelling reasons standard, a district court must weigh relevant factors,

base its decision on a compelling reason, and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without

relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 659 (9th

Cir. 2010) (quotations omitted). “‘Relevant factors’ include the ‘public interest in

understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in

improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade

secrets.’” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 659 n.6 (citing Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th

Cir.1995)); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 ( “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.”) 

Exhibit 6, the claim management guidelines, contain trade secret information regarding

Defendants’ claim administration process which could be used by business competitors to

circumvent the considerable time and resources necessary to develop such guidelines. Exhibit

7, the contract between Defendants and a third party vendor, contains trade secret information

regarding Defendants’ contractual relationship with a third party vendor which could be used

by business competitors to determine Defendants’ internal decision-making processes and its

approach to claim administration. Exhibit 8, Defendants’ supplemental interrogatory responses

which reveal Defendants’ business costs contains trade secret information which could be used

by business competitors affect Defendants’ pricing structure as well as Defendants’

competitiveness in the marketplace. 

The Court finds that Exhibits 6-8 contain trade secret information which might become

a vehicle for improper purposes in the hands of business competitors. Defendants have shown

compelling reasons that outweigh the public's interest in disclosure of these materials and

Case 3:09-cv-00829-WQH-WVG Document 68 Filed 10/07/10 Page 5 of 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

- 6 - 09cv829 WQH (WVG)

justify filing the documents under seal. 

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Second Application to File Documents

Under Seal (ECF No. 50) and Defendants’ Motion to Maintain Status of Confidential

Documents Previously Produced to Plaintiff Under Confidentiality Order (ECF No. 60) are

GRANTED. Plaintiffs may file Exhibits 6-8 under seal in support of any motion or trial brief.

DATED: October 7, 2010

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00829-WQH-WVG Document 68 Filed 10/07/10 Page 6 of 6