Ellis v. Government Employee Ins. Co.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 25, 2024
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01580
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 STANLEY ELLIS, No. 2:22-cv-01580 WBS JDP 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER 15 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Maryland corporation, 16 Defendant. 17

18 ----oo0oo---- 19 Plaintiff Stanley Ellis requests to seal exhibits 20 pursuant to federal and state laws protecting the confidentiality 21 of trade secrets. (Docket No. 31.) See 18 U.S.C. § 1835; Cal. 22 Civ. Code § 3426. 23 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the 24 burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public 25 access. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 26 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Where a party seeks to seal an attachment 27 related to a dispositive pleading, the party must “articulate 28 1 compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that 2 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies 3 favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding 4 the judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79 (citations omitted). The 5 court then must balance the competing interests of the public and 6 the party seeking to keep records secret. Id. at 1179. 7 Plaintiff requests to seal a GEICO “Feature Summary” 8 spanning Bates No. CIQ000001-03 in support of its opposition to 9 defendant’s motion for summary judgment.1 (Docket No. 29-1 at 10 28-30.) Upon review, it is not clear to the court how anything 11 in the Feature Summary constitutes a trade secret. Neither does 12 plaintiff provide any indication why its public disclosure “would 13 irreparably harm [defendants].” (Docket No. 31-1 ¶ 6.) It is 14 further unclear why sealing the entire Feature Summary is 15 necessary to prevent it from being used “as sources of business 16 information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing,” 17 see Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 434 U.S. 589, 598 18 (1978), or how disclosure of the document would invade 19 defendant’s or a third party’s privacy. Finally, sealing this 20 information may prevent the public from understanding the basis 21 upon which the court makes its decisions, and plaintiff fails to 22 explain how its harm outweighs public policies favoring 23 disclosure. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79. 24 Given the public policies favoring disclosure and 25

26 1 The court notes that plaintiff seeks to seal documents produced by defendant “pursuant to [the belief that public 27 disclosure would irreparably harm defendant], the spirit of [the parties’ stipulated protective order] and conduct of the parties 28 in this litigation.” (Docket No. 31-1 ¶ 6.) ene eee eee EE NO OO

1 plaintiff’s failure to show compelling reasons to seal the 2 document at issue, the request will be denied. The court may 3 consider a more tailored request, such as redacting a portion of 4 the Feature Summary, which specifically states the basis for 5 sealing or redacting this document and why defendant’s harm 6 outweighs public policies favoring disclosure. 7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s request to 8 seal (Docket No. 31) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without 9 || prejudice. 10 . . 11 | Dated: January 24, 2024 a tle A hh be WILLIAM B. SHUBB 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28