Amini v. Crestbrook Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 12, 2023
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01377
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 FARBOD AMINI and LAMAN AMINI, CASE NO. 2:21-cv-01377-LK 11 husband and wife, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED 12 Plaintiffs, MOTION TO SEAL v. 13 CRESTBROOK INSURANCE 14 COMPANY and NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Seal documents 18 related to nonparty Stuart Copeland’s employee personnel records. Dkt. No. 42. Plaintiffs Farbod 19 Amini and Laman Amini filed these documents under seal with the reply in support of their 20 pending motion for partial summary judgment, and the parties agree they should remain 21 confidential. Id. at 1–2; see Dkt. No. 32. For the reasons contained herein, the Court grants the 22 parties’ motion; Docket Numbers 47 and 48 shall remain under seal and the redaction in Docket 23 Number 43 shall not be altered. 24 1 I. DISCUSSION 2 A. Legal Standard 3 Courts have recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 4 including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,

5 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). 6 Accordingly, when a court considers a sealing request, its starts with “a strong presumption in 7 favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 8 (2003). This presumption, however, “is not absolute and can be overridden given sufficiently 9 compelling reasons for doing so.” Id. 10 “[P]ublic access to filed motions and their attachments” depends on the whether the motion 11 to which the sealed documents are appended is “more than tangentially related to the merits of a 12 case.” See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). If the 13 motion is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the court must apply the 14 “compelling reasons” standard to the motion to seal. See id. at 1102. If the motion is only

15 tangentially related to the merits, the party seeking to seal the records need only show “good cause” 16 to seal those records. See id. at 1097. 17 Additionally, in the Western District of Washington, parties moving to seal documents 18 must comply with the procedures established by Local Civil Rule 5(g). Under that rule, the party 19 who designates a document confidential must provide a “specific statement of the applicable legal 20 standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the 21 legitimate private or public interest that warrant the relief sought; (ii) the injury that will result if 22 the relief sought is not granted; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not 23 sufficient.” LCR 5(g)(3)(B). And a motion to seal must include a “certification that the party has

24 met and conferred with all other parties in an attempt to reach agreement on the need to file the 1 document under seal, to minimize the amount of material filed under seal, and to explore redaction 2 and other alternatives to filing under seal[.]” LCR 5(g)(3)(A). 3 B. Meet and Confer 4 As an initial matter, the parties have certified that they conferred by telephone on March

5 22, 2023 to discuss the need for filing “the documents under seal, minimizing the amount of 6 material filed under seal, and to explore redaction and other alternatives to filing under seal.” Dkt. 7 No. 42 at 2. The motion also includes a “specific statement of the applicable legal standard and 8 the reasons for keeping a document under seal[.]” LCR 5(g)(3)(B); see Dkt. No. 42 at 3–4. Thus, 9 the motion complies with the requirements of Local Civil Rule 5(g). 10 C. The Parties Have Provided Compelling Reasons for Sealing Copeland’s Personnel Records 11 Because the sealed documents and redacted matter in this case are included with briefing 12 on a motion for partial summary judgment and their contents are more than tangentially related to 13 the merits of the case, the Court finds that the “compelling reasons” standard applies. See Ctr. for 14 Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101–02. Even so, the parties have provided compelling reasons for the 15 redaction and for filing these documents under seal; namely, Copeland’s “reputational and privacy 16 interests” at stake in relation to these records, which outweigh the presumption of public access. 17 Dkt. No. 42 at 3; see, e.g., Moussouris v. Microsoft Corp., No. 15-CV-1483-JLR, 2018 WL 18 1159251, at *6 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 16, 2018) (noting that the privacy interests of nonparties may 19 outweigh the public’s interest in knowing certain information when the information is private to 20 the individuals involved and the nonparties have not sought to place that information in the public 21 sphere), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 1157997 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 1, 2018); 22 Nettles v. Farmers Ins. Exch., No. C06-5164-RJB, 2007 WL 858060, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 16, 23 2007). In addition, a less restrictive alternative would not be practicable as the sealed information 24 1 is not simply personal identifying information that can be easily redacted. Considering this, the 2 Court finds that the sealing request is narrowly tailored to protect Copeland’s privacy interests. 3 Therefore, it is appropriate to keep Exhibit 8 under seal and to maintain the redaction in the 4 Plaintiffs’ reply brief, Dkt. No. 43 at 14.1

5 II. CONCLUSION 6 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the parties’ stipulated motion, Dkt. No. 42, 7 and permits Plaintiffs’ unredacted reply brief, Dkt. No. 47, and Exhibit 8 to Guy W. Beckett’s 8 declaration, Dkt. No. 48, to remain under seal. 9 Dated this 12th day of April, 2023. 10 A 11 Lauren King United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 1 The parties’ motion refers to the need to file portions of Copeland’s deposition testimony under seal as well, Dkt. No. 42 at 1, 4, but neither party has identified such testimony or submitted these excerpts under seal. Moreover, 24 briefing on the underlying motion is now complete, and the parties have not indicated that any deposition excerpts filed in connection with that motion require sealing.