Kieserman v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 30, 2021
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00448
• Status: Unknown

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 JAMIE SHANDRO KIESERMAN, M.D., CASE NO. C21-0448-JCC 10 Plaintiff, MINUTE ORDER 11 v. 12 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, 13 Defendant. 14 15 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C. 16 Coughenour, United States District Judge: 17 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ stipulated motion for leave to file the 18 “administrative record” in this matter under seal (Dkt. No. 9). Plaintiff brings this action under 19 the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), seeking a declaration of her 20 right to disability benefits. (See Dkt. No. 1.) The parties agree that the Court will need to 21 consider Defendant’s claim file, i.e., the administrative record, to resolve the matter. (Dkt. No. 9 22 at 1–2.) The parties now jointly move to file and maintain the administrative record under seal 23 because it contains Plaintiff’s sensitive medical information. (Id.) 24 In general, there is a strong presumption to public access to court-filed documents. See 25 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006); W.D. Wash. 26 1 Local Civ. R. 5(g). A party seeking to seal a document attached to a dispositive motion must 2 provide compelling reasons “that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies 3 favoring disclosure . . . .” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. While courts have recognized that the 4 need to protect a party’s medical privacy is a compelling reason to seal, the decision to seal must 5 be made on a document-by-document basis. See Karpenski v. Am. Gen. Life Companies, LLC, 6 Case No. C12-1569-RSM, slip op. at 2 (W.D. Wash. 2013) (ruling that some but not all of the 7 documents containing protected medical information should be maintained under seal). 8 The parties state that compelling reasons exist for the Court to allow the entire 9 administrative record to be filed under seal, as “[t]hat file is primarily medical records and other 10 documents addressing Plaintiff’s medical conditions.” (Dkt. No. 9 at 2.) The parties assert that 11 redaction is not practicable due to the extensive redactions that would be necessary to protect 12 Plaintiff’s privacy interests. (Id.) The Court cannot grant the motion without first conducting an 13 in camera review of the documents. Therefore, the parties are ORDERED to file a copy of the 14 administrative record under seal no later than September 10, 2021 for the Court’s in camera 15 review. The electronic files containing the administrative record must be submitted in a 16 searchable format. The administrative record will be maintained under seal until the Court issues 17 an order on the parties’ stipulated motion to seal. (Dkt. No. 9.) 18 DATED this 30th day of August 2021. Ravi Subramanian 19 Clerk of Court 20 s/Sandra Rawski 21 Deputy Clerk 22 23 24 25 26