Amtrust International Underwriters DAC v. 180 Life Sciences Corp.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-03844
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In AmTrust International Underwriters DAC v. 180 Life Sciences Corp., Judge Freeman partly allowed and otherwise denied sealing requests, requiring public refiling.
AmTrust International Underwriters DAC and 180 Life Sciences Corp. were required to publicly refile their court papers, while the public’s access to the records was preserved except for the materials the court authorized AmTrust to keep sealed.
What happened
AmTrust International Underwriters DAC v. 180 Life Sciences Corp. concerned requests to keep exhibits and portions of briefs filed under seal in connection with a summary-judgment motion.
The court allowed AmTrust to seal three exhibits and related brief passages, but rejected the remaining sealing requests. It denied 180 Life’s request to seal its opposition materials and required both sides to refile their papers publicly with only authorized redactions.
Judge Freeman’s order applied the strong public-access presumption for court records and required compelling reasons for sealing materials tied to summary judgment.
The detailed version
- Amtrust International Underwriters DAC v. 180 Life Sciences Corp. · No. 5:22-cv-03844
- Beth Freeman
- Jan. 9, 2025
Background
The court considered three administrative motions to file materials under seal. AmTrust sought to seal exhibits and related portions of its summary-judgment briefing, as well as portions of its reply brief. 180 Life sought to seal exhibits and related portions of its opposition papers. Some of the materials had been designated confidential by 180 Life, Dr. Marlene Krauss, or AmTrust.
Legal standard
Because the materials concerned a motion for summary judgment, the court applied the compelling-reasons standard. Under that standard, a party seeking to seal judicial records must show specific reasons that outweigh the public’s strong interest in access to court records. The request must also be narrowly tailored, and the party must show that less restrictive alternatives, such as redaction, are insufficient.
Rulings on AmTrust’s motions
The court found compelling reasons to seal Exhibits 10, 12, and 13 to the declaration of Adrian T. Rohrer filed in support of AmTrust’s summary-judgment motion. The court described Exhibit 10 as a presentation to the Securities and Exchange Commission that disclosed 180 Life’s internal operations, Exhibit 12 as a transcript of Dr. Krauss’s interview with the agency that also disclosed internal operations, and Exhibit 13 as a letter concerning the company’s quarterly financials. The court found that redaction would be impractical and allowed those exhibits to remain sealed in their entirety, along with portions of the briefing that disclosed their contents.
The court rejected 180 Life’s other asserted grounds for sealing materials covered by AmTrust’s motion, including unspecified confidentiality obligations and an asserted interest in protecting the Securities and Exchange Commission’s investigative process. The court concluded that 180 Life had not shown that it could assert the agency’s interests and noted that the investigation appeared to have concluded.
AmTrust’s motions to seal, ECF 119 and ECF 124, were granted as to Exhibits 10, 12, and 13 and related briefing, and otherwise were denied.
Ruling on 180 Life’s motion
The court denied 180 Life’s motion to seal, ECF 122. It found that 180 Life had not established compelling reasons based on the Securities and Exchange Commission investigation or unspecified confidentiality obligations. It also found that AmTrust had not provided enough specific information to establish that privacy interests justified sealing exhibits for which AmTrust was the designating party.
Order’s effect
AmTrust must refile its moving and reply papers, including exhibits, on the public docket with only the narrow redactions authorized by the order. 180 Life must refile its opposition papers, including exhibits, without redactions. Both refilings were due by January 17, 2025. The order terminated ECF 119, 122, and 124.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.