Kemper Holdings LLC v. American International Group UK Limited T/A Lex-London

W.D. Washington

Kemper Holdings LLC v. American International Group UK Limited T/A Lex-London

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided December 23, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-01793·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 KEMPER HOLDINGS LLC, CASE NO. C20-1793 MJP 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION TO FILE CORPORATE 12 v. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT UNDER SEAL 13 AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, 14 Defendants. 15 16

17 This matter comes before the Court upon the Parties’ stipulated motion to allow Plaintiff, 18 Kemper Holdings, LLC, to file its Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement under seal. (Dkt. 19 No. 20.) Having reviewed the Motion and the related record, the Court DENIES the Motion. 20 There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” LCR 5(g). “Unless a 21 particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ 22 is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 23 2006). In order to overcome this presumption, the party seeking to seal must make a 24 1 “particularized showing,” under the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) “to warrant preserving 2 the secrecy of sealed discovery material attached to non-dispositive motions.” Id. at 1180 3 (internal citations omitted). 4 Here, Plaintiff contends that the good cause standard is met because “[m]embers of

5 Kemper not already made public have a legitimate concern that they will be subjected to 6 unnecessary attention and annoyance if their identities are revealed publicly.” (Dkt. No. 20 at 3.) 7 But Plaintiff has failed to identify any specific concern distinguishable from that of any other 8 member of a limited liability company litigating in federal court. Further, Plaintiff’s proposal 9 does not address the public’s right to evaluate whether conflicts exist. Plaintiff has therefore 10 failed to meet the “good cause” standard necessary to overcome the strong presumption in favor 11 of public access. The motion is DENIED; Plaintiff’s Corporate Disclosure Statement shall be 12 unsealed. 13 14 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

15 Dated December 23, 2020.

A 16 17 Marsha J. Pechman 18 United States Senior District Judge

19 20 21 22 23 24

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

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 KEMPER HOLDINGS LLC, CASE NO. C20-1793 MJP 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION TO FILE CORPORATE 12 v. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT UNDER SEAL 13 AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, 14 Defendants. 15 16

17 This matter comes before the Court upon the Parties’ stipulated motion to allow Plaintiff, 18 Kemper Holdings, LLC, to file its Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement under seal. (Dkt. 19 No. 20.) Having reviewed the Motion and the related record, the Court DENIES the Motion. 20 There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” LCR 5(g). “Unless a 21 particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ 22 is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 23 2006). In order to overcome this presumption, the party seeking to seal must make a 24 1 “particularized showing,” under the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) “to warrant preserving 2 the secrecy of sealed discovery material attached to non-dispositive motions.” Id. at 1180 3 (internal citations omitted). 4 Here, Plaintiff contends that the good cause standard is met because “[m]embers of

5 Kemper not already made public have a legitimate concern that they will be subjected to 6 unnecessary attention and annoyance if their identities are revealed publicly.” (Dkt. No. 20 at 3.) 7 But Plaintiff has failed to identify any specific concern distinguishable from that of any other 8 member of a limited liability company litigating in federal court. Further, Plaintiff’s proposal 9 does not address the public’s right to evaluate whether conflicts exist. Plaintiff has therefore 10 failed to meet the “good cause” standard necessary to overcome the strong presumption in favor 11 of public access. The motion is DENIED; Plaintiff’s Corporate Disclosure Statement shall be 12 unsealed. 13 14 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

15 Dated December 23, 2020.

A 16 17 Marsha J. Pechman 18 United States Senior District Judge

19 20 21 22 23 24

Kemper Holdings LLC v. American International Group UK Limited T/A Lex-London, (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Pincite

Kemper Holdings LLC v. American International Group UK Limited T/A Lex-London (Kemper Holdings LLC v. American International Group UK Limited T/A Lex-London) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.