Volino v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company

Background

Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Marc Spizzirri and Dr. Jonathan Walker, along with a motion to seal parts of the supporting papers. Defendants later filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Michelle Lacey, an omnibus motion in limine, and related sealing motions. Plaintiffs and defendants also filed responses and related motions to seal materials connected to the pretrial submissions. The order identifies the motions by docket numbers 304, 312, 320, 338, 340, and 364; the final ruling also includes Docket No. 349.

The materials sought to be sealed had been designated confidential or highly confidential under a stipulated protective order by third-party subpoena respondents Mitchell International, Inc. and J.D. Power. The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle. As a result, all pending motions other than the sealing motions had been denied as moot.

Legal Standard

The court applied a three-step test for sealing records. First, it considered whether the materials were judicial documents subject to a presumed right of public access. A filing is not automatically a judicial document merely because it was submitted to the court; it must be relevant to the court’s work and useful to the judicial process. If it is a judicial document, the court then assesses the strength of the public-access presumption and balances that presumption against competing interests, including privacy and protection of confidential information.

The court noted that the public-access presumption is weaker for materials connected to motions that were denied as moot because those materials played no role in the court’s exercise of judicial power. The presumption is also generally weaker for filings connected to discovery disputes, motions in limine, and expert-testimony challenges than for materials introduced at trial or submitted with dispositive motions such as motions to dismiss or summary judgment.

Ruling

The court found that the privacy interests of the defendants and Respondents outweighed the weak presumption of public access. It determined that the requested limited redactions and full sealing of several documents were necessary to prevent disclosure of confidential business information. The court specifically identified calculation methodologies and information about proprietary software as competitively sensitive information that could harm the defendants or Respondents if disclosed.

The motions to seal at Docket Nos. 304, 312, 320, 338, 340, 349, and 364 were GRANTED. The Clerk of Court was directed to close those motions. The order did not state that the case itself was dismissed or otherwise resolve the parties’ underlying claims.