Allstate Insurance Company v. Shah, MD

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Allstate Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01786-APG-DJA 6 Plaintiffs, 7 Order v. 8 Russell J. Shah MD, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 This is a fraud action arising out of Allstate Insurance Company’s, Allstate Property & 12 Casualty Insurance Company’s, Allstate Indemnity Company’s, and Allstate Fire & Casualty 13 Insurance Company’s (the “Allstate Parties”) allegation that Russell J. Shah, MD; Dipti R. Shah, 14 MD; Russell J. Shah, MD, Ltd; Dipti R. Shah, MD, Ltd; and Radar Medical Group dba 15 University Urgent Care (the “Radar Parties”) caused Allstate to overpay in settling claims. Both 16 the Allstate Parties and Radar Medical Group move to seal exhibits to and unredacted portions of 17 their respective summary judgment briefings. (ECF Nos. 544, 550). Because the Court finds that 18 Radar Medical Group has demonstrated compelling reasons, it grants Radar Medical Group’s 19 motion to seal. (ECF No. 544). Because the Court is unable to evaluate the documents the 20 Allstate Parties seek to seal and because the Allstate Parties’ redactions are more extensive than 21 their motion supports, the Court denies the Allstate Parties’ motion to seal without prejudice. 22 (ECF No. 550). 23 I. Discussion. 24 A party seeking to file a confidential document under seal must file a motion to seal and 25 must comply with the Ninth Circuit’s directives in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 26 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) and Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 27 (9th Cir. 2016). A party seeking to seal judicial records attached to motions more than 1 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183; Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101. Under that standard, “a 2 court may seal records only when it finds ‘a compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis 3 for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 4 1097 (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). That a party has designated a document as 5 confidential under a protective order does not, standing alone, establish sufficient grounds to seal 6 a filed document. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir. 7 2003); see also Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). Finally, 8 the failure of a party to file points and authorities in response to a motion constitutes a consent to 9 the granting of the motion. LR 7-2(d). 10 The Court grants Radar Medical Group’s motion to seal. (ECF No. 544). Radar Medical 11 Group explains that its response to the Allstate Parties’ motion for summary judgment contains 12 three general categories of confidential information: the private health information of non-parties, 13 its business and financial information, and the Allstate Parties’ business and proprietary 14 information. Radar Medical Group explains which exhibits fall under which category and that it 15 cannot reasonably redact the exhibits it seeks to seal because of the extent of confidential 16 information they contain. Radar Medical Group also seeks to redact the portions of its response 17 that contain these categories of information. No party has objected to Radar Medical Group’s 18 motion to seal. Having reviewed Radar Medical Group’s redactions and sealed exhibits, the 19 Court finds that Radar Medical Group has demonstrated compelling reasons to keep these 20 documents under seal. 21 The Court denies the Allstate Parties’ motion to seal without prejudice. (ECF No. 550). 22 Although the Allstate Parties explain that they seek to seal private health information, medical 23 expert testimony regarding patient treatment, the Allstate Parties’ business and proprietary claims 24 handling information, and the Radar Parties’ business and proprietary information, they do not 25 explain which exhibits contain which confidential information. And other than their unredacted 26 response, the Allstate Parties have not filed the exhibits under seal for the Court to review as 27 required under Local Rule IA 10-5. LR IA 10-5(a) (papers filed with the court under seal must be 1 Additionally, the Allstate Parties’ redactions in their response are extensive and it is not clear 2 based on their motion to seal why all the redactions are warranted. The Court will thus deny the 3 Allstate Parties’ motion to seal without prejudice. The Allstate Parties must file the attachments 4 to their response to the Radar Parties’ motion for summary judgment under seal on the docket 5 with a concurrently filed renewed motion to seal on or before May 1, 2023. 6 7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Radar Medical Group’s motion to seal (ECF No. 8 544) is granted. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Allstate Parties’ motion to seal (ECF No. 550) is 10 denied without prejudice. The Allstate parties shall file the attachments to their response to the 11 Radar Parties’ motion for summary judgment under seal on the docket with a concurrently filed 12 renewed motion to seal on or before May 1, 2023. 13 14 DATED: April 10, 2023 15 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27