AssuredPartners of Arizona LLC v. Jason Barrios, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: November 3, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-03849
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 AssuredPartners of Arizona LLC, No. CV-25-03849-PHX-DJH

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Jason Barrios, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff AssuredPartners of Arizona LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an Unopposed Motion 16 for Leave to File Pages 38-45 of Dkt. No. 1-1 Under Seal. (Doc. 23). Plaintiff states that 17 Doc. 1-1 pages 32–45 (“Exhibit C”) is a list of Plaintiff’s clients that contains further 18 confidential business information, such as client policy numbers, premiums, and revenue. 19 (Id. at 1). This list was inadvertently filed alongside Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint 20 (Doc. 1) as a part of the public record, and Plaintiff now requests to seal Exhibit C to 21 remedy this error. (Doc. 23 at 2). Defendants Jason Barrios and Sequel Insurance Services, 22 Inc. do not oppose the relief requested. (Id.) 23 All documents filed with the court are “presumptively public.” San Jose Mercury 24 News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (“It is well-established 25 that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, 26 presumptively public.”). “[A] party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the burden 27 of overcoming this strong presumption.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 28 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 1 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). 2 Two standards govern requests to seal documents or court records: the “good 3 cause” standard and the “compelling reasons” standard. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 4 605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010) amended on other grounds by 605 F.3d 665. “The party 5 seeking to seal a document attached to a non-dispositive motion must meet the lower ‘good 6 cause’ standard pursuant to Rule 26(c).” Dish Network L.L.C. v. Sonicview USA, Inc., 2009 7 WL 2224596, at *6 (S.D. Cal. July 23, 2009) (citations omitted). 8 Here, Exhibit C was attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint, not a dispositive motion, and 9 is not integral to Plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. 23 at 2). Therefore, the “good cause” standard 10 applies. Good cause requires “a ‘particularized showing’ that ‘specific prejudice or harm 11 will result’ if the information is disclosed.” Torliatt v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 570 12 F. Supp. 3d 781, 801 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. 13 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002)). Plaintiff argues that Exhibit C 14 contains client information not known to the general public, which would be highly 15 valuable to competitors as it includes, amongst other things, renewal dates and policy types. 16 (Doc. 23 at 5). Further, Plaintiff asserts that the disclosure of Exhibit C would cause it 17 irreparable harm in the form of loss of business, business opportunity, and goodwill. 18 (Id. at 6). 19 The Court agrees that Exhibit C should be filed under seal. Client identities and 20 other confidential client information have been recognized as the type of sensitive business 21 information that warrants filing under seal. See, e.g., Primus Group, Inc. v. Inst. for Envt’l. 22 Health, Inc., 395 F. Supp. 3d 1243, 1268 (N.D. Cal. 2019); Queen’s Med. Ctr. v. Kaiser 23 Found. Health Plan, Inc., 2014 WL 1234506, *2 (D. Haw. 2014). Plaintiff’s competitors 24 could obtain a competitive advantage from obtaining the information in Exhibit C, and, 25 thus, good cause exists for sealing the exhibit. 26 However, the issue remains that Plaintiff’s requested relief is not feasible. Plaintiff 27 did not individually file the exhibits to its Complaint (see Doc. 1-1 (containing Exhibits 28 A–C)), and the Clerk’s Office is unable to partially seal documents. Therefore, the Court 1} will (1) seal the Complaint with all Exhibits (Doc. 1) and (2) direct Plaintiff to file an || Amended Complaint that either redacts or omits Exhibit C. 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Seal (Doc. 23) is GRANTED. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to SEAL 6 || the Complaint and corresponding exhibits (Doc. 1). 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within one (1) day of this Order, Plaintiff 8 || shall file an Amended Complaint that either redacts or omits Exhibit C. 9 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate □□□□□□□□□□ 10 || Motion for Expedited Discovery (Doc. 12) as moot, the parties having reached a Stipulation |} on the same. 12 Dated this 3rd day of November, 2025. 13 14 fe — □□ 15 norable’ Diang/4. Hunfetewa 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-