Farley v. Lincoln Benefit Life Co.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California

DecidedJanuary 11, 2023

Docket2:20-cv-02485

StatusUnknown

This text of Farley v. Lincoln Benefit Life Co. (Farley v. Lincoln Benefit Life Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Farley v. Lincoln Benefit Life Co., (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 DEANA FARLEY, Individually and on Behalf Case No.: 2:20-cv-02485-KJM-DB of the Class, 11 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF DEANA Plaintiff, FARLEY’S REQUEST TO SEAL 12 DOCUMENTS RE: REPLY IN SUPPORT OF vs. HER MOTION FOR CLASS 13 CERTIFICATION LINCOLN BENEFIT LIFE COMPANY, a 14 Nebraska Corporation, Judge: Hon. Kimberley J. Mueller 15 Defendant. Magistrate: Hon. Deborah Barnes

16 Complaint Filed: December 16, 2020 Trial Date: None Set 17

19 The above-titled matter is before this court on plaintiff’s Request to Seal Documents Re:

20 Reply in Support of her Motion for Class Certification. Request, ECF No. 57. Portions of these

21 documents contain information designated by defendant as “CONFIDENTIAL” under the terms of

22 the Protective Order in this action. Protective Order, ECF No. 31. However, in its prior order, the

23 court advised parties that the “designation of documents (including transcripts of testimony) as

24 confidential pursuant to this order does not automatically entitle the parties to file such a document

25 with the court under seal.” Protective Order ¶ 2. Thus, plaintiff’s reliance on the stipulated

26 protective order does not offer “a compelling reason to overcome the presumption in favor of

27 access.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1138 (9th Cir. 2003); see also

28 Kamakana v. City of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1183 (9th Cir. 2006). 1 Accordingly, the court denies the Request to Seal Documents. 2 This order resolves ECF No. 57. 3 | ITISSO ORDERED 4 | Dated: January 10, 2023.

6 by LY fA 2 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2:20-cv-02485-KJM-D PLAINTIFF DEANA FARLEY’S REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS RE: JOINT STATEMEN

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

1 2

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 DEANA FARLEY, Individually and on Behalf Case No.: 2:20-cv-02485-KJM-DB of the Class, 11 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF DEANA Plaintiff, FARLEY’S REQUEST TO SEAL 12 DOCUMENTS RE: REPLY IN SUPPORT OF vs. HER MOTION FOR CLASS 13 CERTIFICATION LINCOLN BENEFIT LIFE COMPANY, a 14 Nebraska Corporation, Judge: Hon. Kimberley J. Mueller 15 Defendant. Magistrate: Hon. Deborah Barnes

16 Complaint Filed: December 16, 2020 Trial Date: None Set 17

19 The above-titled matter is before this court on plaintiff’s Request to Seal Documents Re:

20 Reply in Support of her Motion for Class Certification. Request, ECF No. 57. Portions of these

21 documents contain information designated by defendant as “CONFIDENTIAL” under the terms of

22 the Protective Order in this action. Protective Order, ECF No. 31. However, in its prior order, the

23 court advised parties that the “designation of documents (including transcripts of testimony) as

24 confidential pursuant to this order does not automatically entitle the parties to file such a document

25 with the court under seal.” Protective Order ¶ 2. Thus, plaintiff’s reliance on the stipulated

26 protective order does not offer “a compelling reason to overcome the presumption in favor of

27 access.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1138 (9th Cir. 2003); see also

28 Kamakana v. City of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1183 (9th Cir. 2006). 1 Accordingly, the court denies the Request to Seal Documents. 2 This order resolves ECF No. 57. 3 | ITISSO ORDERED 4 | Dated: January 10, 2023.

6 by LY fA 2 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2:20-cv-02485-KJM-D PLAINTIFF DEANA FARLEY’S REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS RE: JOINT STATEMEN

Related

Debbie Foltz, Consumer Action United Policyholders Texas Watch, Intervenors, and Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors-Appellants. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation California Institute of Medical Research & Technology, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Dba Comprehensive Medical Review Ralph Householder Steven Becker v. April Jean Ho Jim Mathis, Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Debbie Foltz, and Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors-Appellants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and California Institute of Medical Research & Technology, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Dba Comprehensive Medical Review Ralph Householder Steven Becker v. April Jean Ho Jim Mathis, Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Debbie Foltz, April J. Ho Jim Mathis Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors, and Consumer Action United Policy-Holders Texas Watch, Intervenors-Appellants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and Steven Becker

331 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Farley v. Lincoln Benefit Life Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farley-v-lincoln-benefit-life-co-caed-2023.