IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 11, 2011
ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,
PRINCIPAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, AN IOWA CORPORATION; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 25, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.
On July 6, 2011, the parties filed a stipulation whereby they agreed that certain submissions filed by Principal Life Insurance Company ("defendant") contained information that is required to be redacted under Local Rule 140 and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. ECF 21. As a remedy to the problem, the parties suggest wholesale sealing of defendant's improper filings. This proposal fails to comport with the local rule requirements and the presumption that civil case documents are public. Sealing is inappropriate where redaction would suffice to protect the relevant interest. See Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003) (rejecting sealing where third-party medical and personnel information could be easily redacted). The parties are ordered to submit properly redacted copies of docket entries 16 and 17 along with a request to replace the images on CM/ECF.
Defendant's request to seal the Preferred Provider Agreement is DENIED for failure to comply with the requirements set forth in Local Rule 141 and for failing to articulate a compelling reason for sealing. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) ("[t]hose who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that 'compelling reasons' support secrecy").
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.