Berkeley Insurance Company, a Delaware corporation v. OakCare Medical Group

Background

Defendant Sharnoff moved for permission to file materials under seal and to correct the docket. She had used initials in a state-court action against her former employers. She argued that her full name should remain hidden because of the uniqueness of her name, the sensitive medical and personal information disclosed, and her profession. Berkley Insurance Company had named her using her full name but said it would not oppose her proceeding under initials, provided that this did not limit Berkley’s discovery or other efforts to obtain relief and was not treated as agreement about the state-court action.

Anonymity and docket correction

The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s standard for using a fictitious name. That standard requires weighing the need for secrecy against prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity. The court concluded that the reasons presented in the motion and sealed declaration did not outweigh those interests. It therefore denied Sharnoff’s request to proceed under initials and denied her request to correct the docket. The court also found that changing approximately 30 docket entries would be logistically infeasible because the proposed order did not explain how the changes would be carried out.

Address redaction and disposition

The court found good cause to keep Sharnoff’s address from public disclosure in Berkley’s certificate of service, noting that there was no compelling reason for the public to have the address. It granted that request. The court directed the Clerk to remove Docket No. 27 and directed Berkley to file, by April 7, 2023, a replacement certificate of service with the address redacted. The motion was granted in part and denied in part as stated above. A separate request to seal a stipulation extending Sharnoff’s deadline to respond to the complaint was terminated as moot. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.