Gregory Hessler v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company

Opinion

1 2 3

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT TACOMA 7 GREGORY HESSLER, CASE NO. C25-6192 BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. INSURANCE COMPANY, 11 Defendant. 12

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on plaintiff Gregory Hessler’s Local Civil 14 Rule (LCR) 5(g) motion to provisionally seal, Dkt. 15, and defendant Progressive 15 Casualty Insurance Company’s responsive motion to seal, Dkt. 26. 16 Hessler seeks to provisionally seal, Dkt. 15, his motion for remand, Dkt. 13, and 17 Darrell M. Harber’s supporting declaration, Dkt. 16. He challenges Progressive’s 18 designation of the filings as confidential. 19 Progressive responds that these documents should remain under seal and asks the 20 Court to direct Hessler to publicly file redacted copies. Dkt. 23. It argues they contain 21 proprietary business information and operational strategies. Hessler opposes the 22 1 “wholesale sealing” of Dkts. 13 and 16, arguing they do not comprise confidential 2 information that would harm Progressive. Dkt. 32. 3 Progressive also moves to seal, Dkt. 26, its opposition to Hessler’s motion to

4 remand, Dkt. 30, and Jonathan E. Berg’s supporting declaration, Dkt. 31, again 5 contending they contain its confidential information. Hessler opposes Progressive’s 6 motion for the same reasons. Dkt. 37 (citing Dkt. 32). 7 In this Circuit, there is a “strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” 8 Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). However,

9 this right of access is “not absolute and can be overridden given sufficiently compelling 10 reasons for doing so.” Id. The burden falls on the party seeking to seal the filings. The 11 Court must consider “the public interest in understanding the judicial process and 12 whether disclosure of the material could result in improper use of the material for 13 scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.” Id. (citing Hagestad

14 v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). 15 The Court concludes Progressive has sufficiently demonstrated compelling 16 reasons to seal the filings at this stage of the proceedings. Public access to Progressive’s 17 internal guidelines and policies on diminished value claims would “undermine its 18 competitive standing” and “erode the value” of its proprietary systems. Id. at 7; see Cent.

19 Freight Lines, Inc. v. Amazon Fulfillment Servs., No. C17-0814JLR, 2019 WL 5103311, 20 at *2 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (sealing a filing that related to “confidential business details” 21 relating to party’s “internal processes and procedures,” the disclosure of which “could 22 result in improper use by business competitors”). And contrary to Hessler’s contention 1 that Progressive wants to “wholesale” seal the documents, it requests redacted public 2 copies of the filings. Dkt. 23 at 3. 3 The Court agrees that Dkts. 13, 16, 30, and 31, shall remain SEALED and

4 directs the parties to publicly file redacted versions of those documents. 6 Dated this 24th day of March, 2026. A 7 8 BBEENNJJAAMMIINN HH.. SSEETTTTLLEE 9 UUnniitteedd SSttaatteess DDiissttrriicctt JJuuddggee

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22