Edd King v. National General Insurance Company

Background

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on July 7, 2023. The parties filed six administrative motions asking the court to seal or keep confidential portions of briefs, declarations, expert reports, exhibits, and deposition materials submitted in connection with that motion. The court addressed those motions in connection with its order denying the class-certification motion without prejudice to renewal. That class-certification ruling is referenced here but was not the subject of this order.

The court explained that judicial records generally are presumed open to the public. Because the class-certification motion was more than only tangentially related to the merits of the case, parties seeking to seal related materials had to show compelling reasons. The court said that compelling reasons can include protecting confidential business information that could harm a party’s competitive position, confidential contract information, and personal information such as home addresses.

Rulings on Plaintiffs’ Motions

For Docket Nos. 302 and 394, which concerned the same material, the court granted some requests and denied others. It granted requests involving portions of the class-certification brief and declarations when the court had not relied on the information or when the material revealed detailed confidential business practices, contract information, or contract negotiations. It denied requests where the material was a generalized description, did not reveal specific confidential information, or where defendants had no objection to making it public. The court also granted requests covering several deposition exhibits containing confidential contract information or other confidential business information.

For Docket No. 364, the court likewise granted some requests and denied others. It granted requests involving portions of an expert report and related exhibits when the information revealed defendants’ confidential business information or was not relied on in the court’s order. It denied requests involving generalized descriptions, material that did not reveal specific confidential information, and material that defendants did not oppose unsealing.

For Docket No. 370, concerning excerpts from a deposition, the court unsealed the provisionally sealed material because defendants did not file the required statement or declaration seeking continued sealing.

Rulings on Defendants’ Motions

For Docket No. 346, Sequoia Insurance Company was the designating party for the material at issue. Because Sequoia did not file the required statement or declaration, the court unsealed the provisionally sealed material.

For Docket No. 347, the court granted defendants’ request to redact plaintiffs’ home addresses from Exhibits 4 through 14 of a declaration. The court ordered defendants to re-file those exhibits with only the portions containing the addresses redacted. The court also granted the request to seal Exhibits 18 through 20 of another declaration because they contained information that could harm a designating party’s competitive position and disclose confidential contract or contract-negotiation terms.

The court granted the request to seal portions of that declaration except for paragraphs 11 through 14. It ordered defendants to re-file the declaration with those paragraphs unredacted because the court had relied on the information and it described the agreement only at a high level without revealing specific confidential business practices.

Disposition

The parties were directed to re-file the materials according to the order by October 22, 2024. The order terminated Docket Nos. 302, 346, 347, 364, 370, and 394. The provided opinion text does not identify the judge by name.