Opinion
2:23-cv-00448-KKE
10-12-2023
JARED TUTTLE, an individual, Plaintiff, v. HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
ROBERT J. ROSATI, CA # 112006 Attorneys for Plaintiff, JARED TUTTLE Pro Hac Vice LAW OFFICE OF MEL CRAWFORD MEL CRAWFORD, WSBA # 22930 Attorney for Plaintiff, JARED TUTTLE JENSEN MORSE BAKER PLLC Sarah E. Swale, WSBA No. 29626 Attorneys for Defendant HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY
ROBERT J. ROSATI, CA # 112006 Attorneys for Plaintiff, JARED TUTTLE Pro Hac Vice
LAW OFFICE OF MEL CRAWFORD MEL CRAWFORD, WSBA # 22930 Attorney for Plaintiff, JARED TUTTLE
JENSEN MORSE BAKER PLLC Sarah E. Swale, WSBA No. 29626 Attorneys for Defendant HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY
STIPULATED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE “ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD” UNDER SEAL AND ORDER
KYMBERLY K. EVANSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. Relief Requested
The parties respectfully move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) and Local Civil Rule 5(g), to order that the “Administrative Record” in this matter - the defendant insurance company's claim file - be filed under seal, without redactions. The parties also respectfully request that the Court briefly extend the current deadline for filing the Administrative Record in the Court's Scheduling Order (Docket No. 12), currently set for October 16, 2023, to allow for consideration of this motion and to permit the parties to file the Administrative Record within one week of the Court's ruling on this Stipulated Motion.
II. Relevant Facts and Legal Authority
This action arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. The parties agree the Court will need to consider Defendant's claim file in this ERISA benefits case. Here, that 2,316-page file is primarily voluminous medical records and other documents addressing Plaintiff's psychiatric conditions.
Although Local Civil Rule 5(g) establishes a strong presumption in favor of public access to court filings, the need to protect medical privacy qualifies as a “compelling reason” to allow records to be filed under seal. Karpenski v. Am. Gen. Life Companies, LLC, No. 2:12-CV01569-RSM, 2013 WL 5588312 at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 9, 2013) (citing Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006)). See also Macon v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 2013 WL 951013, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 12, 2013) (granting unopposed motion to seal medical records given the “private nature of the documents at issue”); Gary v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 3:17-CV-01414-HZ, 2018 WL 1811470, at *3 (D. Or. Apr. 17, 2018) (granting an opposed motion to seal an ERISA claim file, citing numerous cases and stating “[t]he parties have not presented, and the Court is not aware of, any cases where medical information was not allowed to be filed under seal under the ‘compelling reasons' standard.”).
Local Civil Rule 5.2(c) states that “in an action for benefits under the Social Security Act” the “administrative record must be filed under seal” because those “actions are entitled to special treatment due to the prevalence of sensitive information and the volume of filings.” Id. That reasoning applies to this action for ERISA disability benefits. Sensitive information concerning the Plaintiff is found throughout the claim file.
As certified below, the parties discussed whether redaction would be a suitable alternative. Due to the volume of the record, and the extensive redaction that would be necessary, the parties believe redaction is not a reasonable alternative. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d) provides that the “court may order that a filing be made under seal without redaction” and the parties respectfully move the Court to so order here.
III. Local Rule 5.2(g)(3)(A) Certification
The parties certify pursuant to Local Rule 5.2(g)(3)(A) that attorney Robert Rosati representing Plaintiff and attorney Sarah Swale representing Defendant conferred by telephone on May 2, 2023, and again via email correspondence in October of 2023, to discuss filing the record under seal and to explore redaction and other alternatives to filing under seal. They agreed redaction was not a reasonable means to protect Plaintiff's medical privacy, because the documents would need to be so heavily redacted.
IV. Conclusion
The parties respectfully move the Court to order that the “Administrative Record” in this matter be filed under seal and to extend the current deadline for filing the Administrative Record in the Court's Scheduling Order (Docket No. 12) to allow for consideration of this motion and to permit the parties to file the Administrative Record within one week of the Court's ruling on this Stipulated Motion .
IT IS SO STIPULATED AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS 12th day of October 2023.
ORDER
The Court GRANTS the parties' stipulated motion. Dkt. No. 14. The Court finds that Plaintiff's interest in medical privacy outweighs the presumption of public access to court records, and ORDERS that the administrative record in this action be filed and maintained under seal. The parties must file the administrative record no later than October 19, 2023.