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 

Adam E. Oliver, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-18-00038-PHX-DWL 

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Adam Oliver’s “Notice of Lodging 

Controverting Statement of Fact and Exhibits under Seal in Support of Response to 

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment” (“Notice”) (Doc. 133.) In it, Plaintiff states 

that he “gives Notice, pursuant to the Protective Order dated June 12, 2018 (Doc. 36), and 

[LRCiv] 5.6(d) of lodging Plaintiff’s Statement of Controverting Facts Nos. 133 and 134, 

and Exhibits CC and DD under seal.” (Doc. 133 at 1.) 

 As an initial matter, LRCiv 5.6(d) sets forth the procedure when one party wishes 

to file a document that another party has designated as confidential. It provides in part: 

[I]f a party wishes to file a document that has been designated as confidential 

by another party pursuant to a protective order or confidentiality agreement, or if a party wishes to refer in a memorandum or other filing to information 

so designated by another party, the submitting party must confer with the 

designating party about the need to file the document (or proposed filing) under seal and whether the parties can agree on a stipulation seeking to have the document (or proposed filing) filed under seal. If the parties are unable 

to agree on these issues, the submitting party must lodge the document (or proposed filing) under seal and file and serve a notice of lodging summarizing the parties’ dispute and setting forth the submitting party’s position, accompanied by a certification that the parties have conferred in 

good faith and were unable to agree about whether the document (or proposed filing) should be filed under seal. 
- 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 

 Here, although the Notice appears to be an attempt to follow the procedure outlined 

in LRCiv 5.6(d), it fails in several ways. First, Plaintiff has not actually lodged his 

Statement of Controverting Facts Nos. 133 and 134 and Exhibits CC and DD under seal, 

even though the Notice purports to give notice that he did so. Second, although Plaintiff’s 

counsel certifies that he “spoke with” Defendant’s counsel and sets forth the opposing

party’s position (“Ms. Andrews expressed that the subject matter information is personal, 

and should remain confidential.”), the Notice fails to indicate the submitting party’s 

position. The Notice does not indicate whether the parties actually dispute Defendant’s 

position that the information should remain confidential, and it certainly does not 

summarize any such dispute (e.g., by explaining why Plaintiff disagrees with the 

confidentiality designation). 

 Although the Notice is drafted in vague terms, the Court infers that Plaintiff disputes 

the confidentiality designation and wants to take advantage of the portion of LRCiv 5.6(d) 

that places the burden on Defendant to defend the confidentiality designation: 

Within fourteen (14) days after service of the notice, the designating party must file and serve either a notice withdrawing the confidentiality designation or a motion to seal and a supporting memorandum that sets forth 

the facts and legal authority justifying the filing of the document (or proposed filing) under seal. If the designating party seeks to have the document (or proposed filing) filed under seal, the motion must append (as a separate attachment) a proposed order granting the motion to seal. No response to the motion may be filed. If the designating party does not file a motion or notice 

as required by this subsection, the Court may enter an order making the document (or proposed filing) part of the public record. 

 To the extent Plaintiff wishes to invoke this portion of LRCiv 5.6(d), he must 

actually lodge the documents and proposed filings that the Notice purports to give notice 

of lodging. Once Plaintiff takes this step, Defendant will have 14 days to withdraw the 

confidentiality designation or file a motion to seal. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that to the extent that Plaintiff Adam Oliver’s “Notice of Lodging 

Controverting Statement of Fact and Exhibits under Seal in Support of Response to 

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. 133), which is docketed as a motion, 

is intended to be a motion to seal, it is denied without prejudice. 
- 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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Notice will satisfy Plaintiff’s obligation 

under LRCiv 5.6(d) once Plaintiff’s Statement of Controverting Facts Nos. 133 and 134, 

and Exhibits CC and DD are lodged. If Plaintiff lodges these documents, Defendant will 

have 14 days after the date on which the documents are lodged to file either (1) a notice 

withdrawing the confidentiality designation on these documents or (2) a motion to seal 

them. 

 Dated this 29th day of May, 2019.