Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Sullivan v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.

Sullivan v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

August 28, 2012, Decided; August 29, 2012, Filed

2:12-cv-01173-GEB-DAD

Opinion

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO LODGE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD UNDER SEAL1

On August 23, 2012, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Lodge the Administrative Record under Seal, arguing "[t]he Administrative Record [in this ERISA action] is replete with confidential personal information, including Plaintiff's financial information, Social Security number, address, birth date, and medical history, which if made public could harm Plaintiff's interests." (Mot. 2:8-10.) The parties further argue "Rule 5.2(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain information . . . to be redacted from court filings[, and  [*2] f]ully redacting the private information from the Administrative Record would be inefficient, impractical, and would place an undue burden on the parties." Id. at 2:11-15.

"Two standards generally govern motions to seal documents . . . ." Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010).

[J]udicial records attached to dispositive motions [are treated] differently from records attached to non-dispositive motions. Those who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that "compelling reasons" support secrecy. A "good cause" showing under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule")] 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions.

Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). Although the parties do not address what legal standard governs the motion, Rule 26(c)'s "good cause" standard appears to apply since no dispositive motion is now at issue.

"In the Rule 26(c) context, '[the] party asserting good cause bears the burden, for each particular document it seeks to [have sealed], of showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no [sealing]  [*3] order is granted.'" Davis v. Social Serv. Coordinators, Inc., No. 1:10-cv-02372-LJO-SKO, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87019, 2012 WL 2376217, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 22, 2012)(quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003)). "'Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.'" Id. (quoting Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992)).

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

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

2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123269 *; 2012 WL 3763904

OTILIA SULLIVAN, Plaintiff, v. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, and PHH CORPORATION GROUP EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN, Defendants.

Subsequent History: Motion denied by Sullivan v. Prudential Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175493 (E.D. Cal., Dec. 10, 2012)

Summary judgment granted by Sullivan v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42077 (E.D. Cal., Mar. 22, 2013)

Summary judgment granted by, Remanded by, Motion granted by, in part, Motion denied by, in part Sullivan v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101197 (E.D. Cal., July 14, 2014)

Costs and fees proceeding at, Motion denied by Sullivan v. Prudential Life Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8720 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 16, 2019)

CORE TERMS

administrative record, Seal, good cause, redacting, parties, dispositive motion, motions, records, non-dispositive, references, documents, reasons, replete, secrecy