McNelis v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America
This text of McNelis v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America (McNelis v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The Honorable Richard A. Jones 1
5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7
8 JAMES McNELIS.,
9 Plaintiff,
10 v. Case No. C19-01590-RAJ
11 ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE TO SEAL 12 COMPANY OF AMERICA,
13 Defendant. 14 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ stipulated motions to seal. 15 Dkt. ## 38, 41. “There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” 16 Western District of Washington Local Civil Rule (“LCR”) 5(g). “Only in rare 17 circumstances should a party file a motion, opposition, or reply under seal.” LCR 18 5(g)(5). Normally the moving party must include “a specific statement of the applicable 19 legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, with evidentiary 20 support from declarations where necessary.” LCR 5(g)(3)(B). 21 Under LCR 5(g), whichever party designates a document confidential must 22 provide a “specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping 23 a document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public 24 interest that warrant the relief sought; (ii) the injury that will result if the relief sought is 25 not granted; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not 26 sufficient.” LCR 5(g). 1 Plaintiff filed several documents, designated by Prudential as “Confidential,” in 2 support of his opposition to Prudential’s cross-motion for summary judgment. 3 Prudential argues that there are “compelling reasons” to keep these documents under seal 4 because they contain confidential third-party tax information as well as information 5 regarding Prudential’s contracts with third-party vendors that could be used by business 6 competitors. Plaintiff objects to Prudential’s request to keep the documents under seal. 7 Here, Prudential has demonstrated compelling reasons to keep this confidential 8 information under seal. Kamakana v. Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-81 (9th 9 Cir. 2006). The Court has reviewed the documents and finds that they contain 10 proprietary and confidential business information. See Moussouris v. Microsoft Corp., No. 15-cv-1483 JLR, 2018 WL 2124162, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 24, 2018); Watts v. 11 Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 09-829, 2010 WL 11508844, at *2-4 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2010). 12 Additionally, the Court agrees that Prudential’s interest in protecting its confidential 13 business information outweighs the right of public access. Douglas v. Xerox Bus. Servs. 14 LLC, No. C12-1798-JCC, 2014 WL 12641056, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 11, 2014). 15 Accordingly, the Court will permit these documents to remain under seal. However, 16 Plaintiff must also file redacted copies of each of the exhibits on the public record. 17 For the foregoing reasons, the parties’ stipulated motions to seal are GRANTED. 18 Dkt. ## 38, 41. 19 DATED this 9th day of April, 2020. 20
21 A 22 23 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 24 United States District Judge
25 26
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
McNelis v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcnelis-v-the-prudential-insurance-company-of-america-wawd-2020.