Opinion
23-cv-02504-AMO
01-25-2024
CITY OF SAN MATEO, Plaintiff, v. ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
ORDER RE MOTION TO SEAL RE: DKT. NO. 20
ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Argonaut Insurance Company's administrative motion to seal the following documents:
The motion did not conform to Civil Local Rule 79-5 or this Court's Standing Order for Civil Cases. Future motions must comply with applicable rules. Going forward, the Court will summarily strike any non-compliant filings.
| Document Sought to be Sealed | Portion of Document Sought to be Sealed |
| Argonaut's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment | |
| Argonaut's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment | Page 20, n.5 |
| Argonaut's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment | Page 20, line 21 - Page 21, line 11 |
| Declaration of Joan Olfers in Support of Argonaut's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment | Paragraphs 4-7 |
| Exhibit 1 to the Olfers Declaration (copies of full transcripts of the state court plaintiffs' deposition testimony) | Entire Document |
| Exhibit 2 (copy of July 28, 2022 letter) | Entire Document |
Page references are to the numbering on the CM/ECF header.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, the party seeking to file a document or portions of it under seal must explain “(i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(1). The request must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(3).
A party seeking to seal records must provide “compelling reasons” to overcome the “strong presumption in favor of access.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The standard derives from the “common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). To overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal judicial records 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.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (citations omitted). The party must make a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). It is in the “sound discretion of the trial court” to determine what constitutes a “compelling reason” for sealing a court document. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)).
Here, the City did not timely file a declaration in support of sealing as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3). The Court nonetheless granted the City leave to file a declaration in support of sealing no later than January 18, 2024. ECF 50. The City did so. ECF 51. In that declaration, the City takes no position on whether Exhibit 1 should be sealed, asserts that Exhibit 2 is subject to attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product protection, and asks that Exhibit 2, with the portions of Argonaut's opposition brief that refer to it, remain sealed. ECF 51 at 1-2. The declaration does not address any other portion of the opposition brief as to which Argonaut seeks sealing. See Id. Nor does the declaration address the portions of the Olfers declaration currently under seal. See id.
Having considered the City's declaration, and applying the relevant standard, the Court finds compelling reasons to seal the full deposition transcripts of the state court plaintiffs. Argonaut provided the full transcripts, but it did not cite any specific material in its opposition brief. Accordingly, the Court has not considered any of the transcripts in ruling on the underlying motion for partial summary judgment. Moreover, the testimony is of a sensitive nature, and there is no indication that either party to this action served plaintiffs in the underlying state court litigation so that they may have an opportunity to offer a declaration in support of sealing. For these reasons, the motion to seal is granted as to the transcripts. It is denied, however, as to the one generic sentence in the opposition brief that cites to the full transcripts without disclosing the underlying testimony.
As to the July 28, 2022 letter, and the portions of Argonaut's opposition brief that mention it, the Court finds compelling reasons to grant the motion to seal because the letter is subject to attorney-client privilege.
As to paragraphs 4-7 of Olfers declaration, the City has provided no reason for that material to remain under seal. The Court does not find compelling reasons to keep those paragraphs sealed, as they provide descriptions of Exhibits 1 and 2 without revealing the substance of the exhibits themselves.
For the convenience of the parties, the Court summarizes its rulings in the chart below:
| Document Sought to be Sealed | Portion of Document Sought to be Sealed | Ruling |
| Argonaut's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment | Page 15, line 22. | DENIED. |
| Argonaut's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment | Page 20, n.5 | GRANTED. The portion sought to be sealed describes the content of an attorney-client privileged communication. |
| Argonaut's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment | Page 20, line 21 - Page 21, line 11 | GRANTED. The portion sought to be |
| Document Sought to be Sealed | Portion of Document Sought to be Sealed | Ruling |
| sealed summarizes or quotes from the content of an attorney-client privileged communication. | ||
| Declaration of Joan Olfers in Support of Argonaut's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment | Paragraphs 4-7 | DENIED. |
| Exhibit 1 to the Olfers Declaration (copies of full transcripts of the state court plaintiffs' deposition testimony) | Entire Document | GRANTED. The testimony is of a sensitive nature, was not specifically cited nor considered in ruling on the underlying motion for partial summary judgment, and the deponents were not served with the motion to seal. |
| Exhibit 2 (copy of July 28, 2022 letter) | Entire Document | GRANTED. The document is attorney-client privileged. |
Documents filed under seal as to which the Court has granted Argonaut's motion will remain under seal. See Civil L.R. 79-5(g)(1). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(g)(2), if the City wishes to file a supplemental declaration to seal any materials as to which the Court has denied Argonaut's motion, it must do so by no later than February 1, 2024. If no supplemental declaration is filed by that date, Argonaut shall file public versions of all documents as to which sealing has been denied by no later than February 8, 2024.
IT IS SO ORDERED.