Dioquino v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co.

Dioquino v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co.

Opinion

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL (ECF No. 23)

Defendant is moving for partial summary judgment on Plaintiff's action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). (ECF No. 22.) In support of its motion, Defendant moves to seal the claim files for Plaintiff's disability claims. (ECF No. 23.) These files total "937 pages, many of which contain personal and private information relating to Plaintiff, including her Social Security Number, date of birth, medial information, and financial information." (Id.) Hence, Defendant argues "it would be very burdensome to redact all of that information from the voluminous records." (Id.) Plaintiff does not oppose the sealing request. (Id.)

I. LEGAL STANDARD

"[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including [*2]  judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, 98 S. Ct. 1306, 55 L. Ed. 2d 570 (1978). "Unless a particular court record is one 'traditionally kept secret,' a 'strong presumption in favor of access' is the starting point." Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). "The presumption of access is 'based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice." Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)).

A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is "more than tangentially related to the merits of the case." Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. When the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the "compelling reasons" standard applies. Id. at 1096-98. When the underlying motion does not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, the "good cause" standard applies. Id.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.