Bradley Sternfels v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 29, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00112
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 2:25-cv-00112-JAD-BNW Bradley Sternfels, 4 Plaintiff Order Granting Joint Motion to Seal 5 v. [ECF No. 23] 6 United of Omaha Life Insurance Company,

7 Defendant

8 In this disability-insurance dispute, the parties were given leave to file their exhibits as an 9 administrative record.1 They jointly move to seal that record, asserting that the vast majority of 10 its exhibits contain plaintiff Bradley Sternfels’s medical history and are replete with personal 11 health information and personal identifying information.2 “The public has a ‘general right to 12 inspect and copy public records and documents including judicial records and documents.’”3 13 “Although the common law right of access is not absolute, ‘[courts] start with a strong 14 presumption in favor of access to court records.’”4 A party seeking to seal judicial records 15 attached to dispositive motions5 “can overcome the strong presumption of access by providing 16 17 18 1 See ECF No. 17 at 2 (discovery plan and scheduling order). 19 2 ECF No. 23. 20 3 In re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Pracs. Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). 21 4 Id. (quoting Foltz v. St. Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). 5 For sealing purposes, the Ninth Circuit considers dispositive any motion that “is more than 22 tangentially related to the underlying cause of action.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1100 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). The parties concede that they 23 must show compelling reasons to seal the administrative record because it will be used as the basis for evidence undergirding their dispositive motions. See ECF No. 23 at 2–3. 1|| ‘sufficiently compelling reasons’ that override the public policies favoring disclosure.”° “When ruling on a motion to seal court records, the district court must balance the competing interests of the public and the party seeking to seal judicial records” and “articulate a factual basis for each A|| compelling reason to seal.””’ 5 I have reviewed the 3,000+ page administrative record, and I conclude that compelling 6]| reasons exist to keep it sealed in its entirety. The exhibits consist almost entirely of medical 7\|records and documents that contain Sternfels’s personal and private health information. I find that Sternfels’s interest in keeping that information private outweighs any public interest in its 9|| disclosure. So I grant the parties’ joint motion to seal. 10 Conclusion 11 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the joint motion to seal [ECF No. 23] is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to MAINTAIN THE SEAL on ECF No. 19. 13

U.S. Dis idge femfer Dorsey 15 October’29, 2025 16 17 18 19 20 21 22}; ___ © In re Midland, 686 F.3d at 1118 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135); see also Kamakana vy. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). In re Midland, 686 F.3d at 1119 (citations omitted).