Ward v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London
Ward v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, Subscribing to Certificate No. B1132HGBA15062712
- William Alsup
- 3:18-cv-07551
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Ward v. Certain Underwriters, Judge Alsup denied plaintiffs’ request to seal an email exhibit because the reasons and redactions were inadequate.
The order directly affected Andre Ward and Roc Nation Sports, LLC, whose request to seal an email exhibit was denied. It also concerned the retail insurance broker whose email was included in the exhibit, as well as the defendants and other participants in the insurance dispute.
What happened
In Ward v. Certain Underwriters, the plaintiffs sought to seal an email from their retail insurance broker that was attached to their opposition to adding third parties. They said the email revealed confidential information about the broker’s clients.
The court denied the request. It found that the plaintiffs offered only vague claims about sensitivity and possible harm, and that they sought to redact the entire email rather than only the allegedly confidential information. The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a revised public version by December 20, 2019, at noon.
Judge William Alsup issued the order. He also stated that the broker’s status as a nonparty did not automatically justify sealing the email and referred the plaintiffs to an existing protective order.
The detailed version
- Ward v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London · No. 3:18-cv-07551
- William Alsup
- Dec. 10, 2019
Background
In connection with their opposition to a motion for leave to implead third parties, the plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to seal an exhibit. The exhibit contained a chain of emails involving brokers and adjusters in the underlying insurance dispute. The plaintiffs sought to redact the email from their retail insurance broker, asserting that it exposed confidential clientele information.
Court’s analysis
Because the motion to add third parties was more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the court applied the standard requiring compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings to justify sealing. The court also noted that requests to seal must be narrowly tailored to material that can properly be kept from public view.
The court found that the supporting declaration did not provide compelling, specific reasons. Instead, it used general descriptions such as “sensitive,” “closely guarded,” “confidential,” and “highly competitive,” along with a general assertion that disclosure could cause reputational harm. The court also found that the proposed redactions were too broad because the plaintiffs sought to remove the entire email, including the broker’s personal identity, rather than only the portion referring to the claimed confidential clientele information.
The court further stated that the broker’s status as a nonparty did not automatically justify sealing. It noted that the broker could play a central role in the dispute and referred the plaintiffs to the operative protective order concerning confidentiality designations.
Disposition
The court denied the plaintiffs’ request to file the exhibit under seal. It ordered them to file a revised version of the exhibit on the public docket by December 20, 2019, at noon.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.