United States District Court, E.D. California
PAUL EVERT’S RV COUNTRY, INC.; PAUL EVERT; and CHARLES CURTIS, Plaintiffs,
v.
UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendant.
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ AND DEFENDANT’S
REQUESTS TO SEAL
WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiffs
Paul Evert’s RV Country, Inc., Paul Evert, and Charles
Curtis initiated this suit against defendant Universal
Underwriters Insurance Company alleging a breach of
defendant’s duty to defend and indemnify. Defendant
subsequently filed cross-claims for declaratory relief.
Presently before the court is defendant’s request, with
the stipulation of plaintiffs, to file its motion for summary
judgment, reply papers, and all exhibits under seal, (Docket
No. 60), and plaintiffs’ request to file their notice
of motion and motion for partial summary judgment and all
supporting papers under seal, (Docket No. 63).
A party
seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of
overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public access.
Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The party must “articulate
compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings
that outweigh the general history of access and the public
policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in
understanding the judicial process.” Id. at
1178-79 (citation omitted). In ruling on a request to seal,
the court must balance the competing interests of the public
and the party seeking to keep records secret. Id. at
1179.
The
parties both contend their cross-summary judgment materials
should be sealed pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation
and Protective Order Regarding Confidential Information
signed by Magistrate Judge Oberto. (Pls.’ Req. to Seal
(“Pls.’ Req.”) at 3 (Docket No. 63).)
Defendant contends that it opposed plaintiffs’ prior
motions to stay discovery and trial in the present action
pending the outcome of the appeal in the underlying state
court action because it believed the stipulated protective
order would sufficiently preserve confidentiality.
(Def.’s Req. to Seal (“Def.’s Req.”)
at 3 (Docket No. 60).) The parties have stipulated that all
depositions and a significant percentage of the documents
produced during discovery are confidential under the
protective order. This court has previously pointed out that
a confidentiality agreement between the parties does not per
se constitute a compelling reason to seal documents that
outweighs the interests of public disclosure and access. See
Oct. 8, 2014 Order at 2, Starbucks Corp. v. Amcor
Packaging Distrib., Civ. No. 2:13-1754; Sept. 3, 2015
Order at 3, Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, Civ. No.
1:14-00953; Sept. 18, 2015 Order at 2, Rosales v. City of
Chico, Civ. No. 2:14-02152. The fact that the assigned
magistrate judge signed the stipulated protective order does
not change this principle.
The
parties also argue that their requests to seal should be
granted because the relevant material is protected by the
“tripartite attorney-client relationship” between
the insured, insurer, and the attorney hired by the insurer
to represent the insured in the underlying state action.
(Pls.’ Req. at 7.) Plaintiffs cite two California Court
of Appeal cases that note that when an attorney is engaged
and paid by the insurer to defend the insured, “each
member of the trio, attorney, client-insured, and
client-insurer has corresponding rights and obligations
founded largely on contract, and as to the attorney, by the
Rules of Professional Conduct as well.” Am. Mut.
Liab. Ins. Co. v. Superior Ct., 38 Cal.App.3d 579, 592
(3d Dist. 1974). An attorney-client relationship can exist
between the insured’s defense attorney, the insured,
and the insurer. Id.; Gulf Ins. Co. v. Berger,
Kahn, Shafton, Moss, Figler, Simon & Gladstone, 79
Cal.App.4th 114, 126 (2d Dist. 2000). The parties contend
that the cross-summary judgment materials must be sealed in
order to preserve the confidentiality of all attorney- client
communications either party had with counsel and information
disclosed during discovery. The preservation of
confidentiality is of particular importance in this case,
defendant argues, because the third-party plaintiff in the
underlying state court action could potentially make use of
privileged information in the event of a retrial of the
underlying state court matter. (Def.’s Req. at 3.)
While
there may be an attorney-client privilege between plaintiffs,
defendant, and plaintiffs’ counsel and certain portions
of the summary judgment material may therefore be protected
by the attorney-client privilege, this is not a compelling
reason to order a blanket seal of all summary judgment
briefing and supporting papers. Such an overly broad request
does not even merit serious consideration. Given the
important public policies favoring disclosure to the public
and the media, the requests will accordingly be denied. The
denial will be without prejudice to the parties’
getting serious and refiling more tailored requests to seal
specific privileged portions of the material or to redact
certain privileged lines.
IT IS
THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ and
defendant’s requests to seal (Docket Nos. 60, 63) be,
and ...