Cochrane v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company

W.D. Washington

Cochrane v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company

DecidedMarch 23, 2020

Docket2:19-cv-01253

StatusUnknown

This text of Cochrane v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company (Cochrane v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cochrane v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company, (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 JENNY COCHRANE, dba LAW OFFICE OF CASE NO. C19-1253-JCC JENNY COCHRANE 10 ORDER 11 Plaintiff, v. 12 AMERICAN GUARANTEE & LIABILITY 13 INSURANCE COMPANY, 14 Defendant. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ stipulated motion to seal (Dkt. No. 17 17). The parties request that the Court maintain under seal an exhibit filed by Defendant in 18 support of its motion for summary judgment. (See id. at 1; Dkt. No. 23.) In October 2019, the 19 Court entered a protective order limiting the disclosure of “confidential” information produced 20 by the parties. (See Dkt. No. 10.) The protective order provides that the “WSBA grievance 21 proceedings, Diversion Contract, supporting affidavits, supporting declarations, etc. shall be 22 considered ‘confidential’ to the same extent they are considered ‘confidential’ under the Rules 23 for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct.” (See id.) 24 The Court starts from the position that “[t]here is a strong presumption of public access to 25 [its] files.” W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 5(g). This presumption applies particularly to “dispositive 26 pleadings.” Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). To 1 overcome this presumption, there must be a “compelling reason” for sealing that is “sufficient to 2 outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure.” Id. 3 The exhibit the parties seek to maintain under seal contains information defined as 4 “confidential” under the protective order entered by the Court. (See Dkt. Nos. 10, 23.) Further, 5 Plaintiff has a strong interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the information contained in 6 the exhibit that outweighs the public’s interest in its disclosure. See W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 7 5(g); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Therefore, the Court hereby GRANTS the parties’ stipulated 8 motion to seal (Dkt. No. 17). The Clerk is DIRECTED to maintain Docket Number 23 under 9 seal. 10 DATED this 23rd day of March 2020. A 11 12 13 John C. Coughenour 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 JENNY COCHRANE, dba LAW OFFICE OF CASE NO. C19-1253-JCC JENNY COCHRANE 10 ORDER 11 Plaintiff, v. 12 AMERICAN GUARANTEE & LIABILITY 13 INSURANCE COMPANY, 14 Defendant. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ stipulated motion to seal (Dkt. No. 17 17). The parties request that the Court maintain under seal an exhibit filed by Defendant in 18 support of its motion for summary judgment. (See id. at 1; Dkt. No. 23.) In October 2019, the 19 Court entered a protective order limiting the disclosure of “confidential” information produced 20 by the parties. (See Dkt. No. 10.) The protective order provides that the “WSBA grievance 21 proceedings, Diversion Contract, supporting affidavits, supporting declarations, etc. shall be 22 considered ‘confidential’ to the same extent they are considered ‘confidential’ under the Rules 23 for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct.” (See id.) 24 The Court starts from the position that “[t]here is a strong presumption of public access to 25 [its] files.” W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 5(g). This presumption applies particularly to “dispositive 26 pleadings.” Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). To 1 overcome this presumption, there must be a “compelling reason” for sealing that is “sufficient to 2 outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure.” Id. 3 The exhibit the parties seek to maintain under seal contains information defined as 4 “confidential” under the protective order entered by the Court. (See Dkt. Nos. 10, 23.) Further, 5 Plaintiff has a strong interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the information contained in 6 the exhibit that outweighs the public’s interest in its disclosure. See W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 7 5(g); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Therefore, the Court hereby GRANTS the parties’ stipulated 8 motion to seal (Dkt. No. 17). The Clerk is DIRECTED to maintain Docket Number 23 under 9 seal. 10 DATED this 23rd day of March 2020. A 11 12 13 John C. Coughenour 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cochrane v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cochrane-v-american-guarantee-liability-insurance-company-wawd-2020.