Pacific Structures, Inc v. Greenwich Insurance Company

Background

Pacific Structures, Inc. filed an administrative motion concerning whether material submitted by another party should be sealed. Non-party Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. filed a response and two declarations supporting the sealing of portions of the First Amended Complaint. The disputed material was in paragraphs 28(e) through 28(l); Sedgwick agreed that paragraphs 28(a) through 28(d) could be filed publicly.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records generally receive a strong presumption of public access. For material attached to a dispositive motion, a party seeking secrecy must show “compelling reasons” supported by specific facts that outweigh the public’s interest in understanding the judicial process. Material attached to a nondispositive motion is subject to the lower “good cause” standard, which requires a particularized showing of specific harm. Because the complaint was the pleading on which the case was based, the court applied the compelling-reasons standard.

Court’s analysis

The court found the proposed redaction of eight full paragraphs overbroad. Under the local rule, a sealing request must be narrowly tailored to protect only information that can properly be kept from public access. The court stated that the material appeared to reveal the number of claims assigned to claims examiners, suggesting that, at most, the specific figures might be sealable. Sedgwick had not provided a compelling reason to seal the entire email excerpts.

The court rejected Sedgwick’s argument that the excerpts should be sealed because they could tarnish its reputation. It explained that embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation, without more, does not justify sealing court records. The court also noted that the excerpts directly related to Pacific’s allegations that Greenwich breached contractual duties, including duties to investigate and respond to Pacific’s insurance claim. Completely redacting those portions would therefore not serve the public’s interest in understanding the judicial process.

Disposition

The court DENIED Pacific’s administrative motion to seal. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(g)(2), Sedgwick may file a renewed motion within seven days of the order, but it may not again seek to redact the identified paragraphs in their entirety. A renewed request for any narrower fact must present a particularized compelling reason. If no renewed motion is filed, Pacific must file public versions of documents for which sealing was denied within ten days.