Primerica Life Insurance Company v. Reyes

S.D. California

Primerica Life Insurance Company v. Reyes

DecidedMay 8, 2023

Docket3:22-cv-01463

StatusUnknown

This text of Primerica Life Insurance Company v. Reyes (Primerica Life Insurance Company v. Reyes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Primerica Life Insurance Company v. Reyes, (S.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 PRIMERICA LIFE INSURANCE Case No.: 22cv1463-L-AGS COMPANY, 11 ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION Plaintiff, 12 TO SEAL v. 13 [ECF No. 26] LYLAH REYES et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 Pending before the Court is Joint Motion to Seal the Parties’ Joint Motion to 17 Dismiss and Related Order (ECF No. 26, “Mot. to Seal”). The parties in this interpleader 18 action have entered into a confidential settlement agreement. They request to file under 19 seal their entire joint motion to dismiss and the anticipated future order granting it. For 20 the reasons which follow, the Motion to Seal is denied without prejudice to refiling as 21 stated herein. 22 Sealing court records implicates the "general right to inspect and copy public 23 records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner 24 Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978).1 Aside from “grand jury transcripts and 25 warrant materials in the midst of a pre-indictment investigation,” a strong presumption 26

27 1 Unless otherwise noted, internal quotation marks, ellipses, brackets, citations, and 28 1 applies in favor of public access to judicial records. Kamakana v. City and County of 2 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). A party seeking to seal a judicial record 3 bears the burden of overcoming the strong presumption of public access by meeting the 4 “compelling reasons” standard. Id. at 1178. The compelling reasons standard applies to 5 documents filed in relation to any motion except a motion that is only “tangentially 6 related to the merits of a case.” Ctr for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 7 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). "Under this exception, a party need only satisfy the less exacting 8 'good cause' standard" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. at 1097. 9 The parties seek dismissal because they have reached a settlement. Although their 10 joint motion to dismiss would dispose of this action, it does not address its merits or 11 assist the public in the understanding of the judicial process. See Ctr for Auto Safety, 809 12 F.3d at 1096. Accordingly, the Court considers the Motion to Seal under the good cause 13 standard. 14 Rule 26(c) permits sealing a document for good cause to protect a party "from 15 annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." “A party asserting 16 good cause bears the burden, for each particular document it seeks to protect, of showing 17 that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted." Foltz v. State 18 Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2003). "[B]road allegations of harm, 19 unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 20 26(c) test." Beckman Indus. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 21 Motion to Seal is based entirely on the agreement to keep the settlement 22 confidential. Agreement of the parties alone is insufficient to warrant sealing even under 23 the less stringent good cause standard. See San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. 24 (Saldivar), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999); Beckman Indus. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 25 F.2d 470, 475-76 (9th Cir. 1992); Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Or. v. 26 Weyerhaeuser Co., 340 F. Supp. 2d 1118, 1121 (D. Or. 2003). Moreover, upon review of 27 the document proposed to be sealed, the Court finds that a large portion of the document 28 states facts already in the public record. 1 For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Seal is denied. The parties may refile the 2 || motion provided they address the relevant legal standard and narrow their request to 3 || those portions of the document which meet the standard. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 || Dated: May 5, 2023 : 1 fee fp 8 H . James Lorenz, 9 United States District Judge

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 PRIMERICA LIFE INSURANCE Case No.: 22cv1463-L-AGS COMPANY, 11 ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION Plaintiff, 12 TO SEAL v. 13 [ECF No. 26] LYLAH REYES et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 Pending before the Court is Joint Motion to Seal the Parties’ Joint Motion to 17 Dismiss and Related Order (ECF No. 26, “Mot. to Seal”). The parties in this interpleader 18 action have entered into a confidential settlement agreement. They request to file under 19 seal their entire joint motion to dismiss and the anticipated future order granting it. For 20 the reasons which follow, the Motion to Seal is denied without prejudice to refiling as 21 stated herein. 22 Sealing court records implicates the "general right to inspect and copy public 23 records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner 24 Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978).1 Aside from “grand jury transcripts and 25 warrant materials in the midst of a pre-indictment investigation,” a strong presumption 26

27 1 Unless otherwise noted, internal quotation marks, ellipses, brackets, citations, and 28 1 applies in favor of public access to judicial records. Kamakana v. City and County of 2 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). A party seeking to seal a judicial record 3 bears the burden of overcoming the strong presumption of public access by meeting the 4 “compelling reasons” standard. Id. at 1178. The compelling reasons standard applies to 5 documents filed in relation to any motion except a motion that is only “tangentially 6 related to the merits of a case.” Ctr for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 7 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). "Under this exception, a party need only satisfy the less exacting 8 'good cause' standard" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. at 1097. 9 The parties seek dismissal because they have reached a settlement. Although their 10 joint motion to dismiss would dispose of this action, it does not address its merits or 11 assist the public in the understanding of the judicial process. See Ctr for Auto Safety, 809 12 F.3d at 1096. Accordingly, the Court considers the Motion to Seal under the good cause 13 standard. 14 Rule 26(c) permits sealing a document for good cause to protect a party "from 15 annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." “A party asserting 16 good cause bears the burden, for each particular document it seeks to protect, of showing 17 that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted." Foltz v. State 18 Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2003). "[B]road allegations of harm, 19 unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 20 26(c) test." Beckman Indus. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 21 Motion to Seal is based entirely on the agreement to keep the settlement 22 confidential. Agreement of the parties alone is insufficient to warrant sealing even under 23 the less stringent good cause standard. See San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. 24 (Saldivar), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999); Beckman Indus. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 25 F.2d 470, 475-76 (9th Cir. 1992); Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Or. v. 26 Weyerhaeuser Co., 340 F. Supp. 2d 1118, 1121 (D. Or. 2003). Moreover, upon review of 27 the document proposed to be sealed, the Court finds that a large portion of the document 28 states facts already in the public record. 1 For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Seal is denied. The parties may refile the 2 || motion provided they address the relevant legal standard and narrow their request to 3 || those portions of the document which meet the standard. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 || Dated: May 5, 2023 : 1 fee fp 8 H . James Lorenz, 9 United States District Judge

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Beckman Industries, Inc. Smithkline Beckman, and Stauffer Chemical Company, Intervenors-Appellees v. International Insurance Company, Beckman Industries, Inc. Smithkline Beckman, and Monsanto Company Reichhold Limited Fmc Corporation Bridgestone/firestone, Intervenors-Appellees v. International Insurance Company

966 F.2d 470 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)

San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. District Court -- Northern District (San Jose)

187 F.3d 1096 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)

Anchor Coal Co. v. United States

25 F.2d 462 (S.D. West Virginia, 1928)

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

340 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (D. Oregon, 2003)

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu

447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC

809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)

Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Primerica Life Insurance Company v. Reyes, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/primerica-life-insurance-company-v-reyes-casd-2023.