Edd King v. National General Insurance Company

Background

Sequoia Insurance Company filed a motion for summary judgment. The parties then filed administrative motions asking the court to decide whether certain materials should be filed under seal. The court had previously granted Sequoia’s summary-judgment motion and addressed the sealing requests in this order.

Legal standard

The court explained that court records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Because the sealing requests concerned materials connected to a summary-judgment motion, which was more than tangentially related to the merits, the parties had to show “compelling reasons” for sealing the materials. That standard can be satisfied for confidential business information that could harm a party’s competitive position, including trade secrets, customer information, detailed financial information, and confidential contract terms.

Plaintiffs’ administrative motion

The National General Defendants sought to seal portions of Scott Brown’s declaration; Exhibit E to that declaration; Exhibits 8-1 and 8-2; Exhibit 10, a Seller Disclosure Letter to a Stock Purchase Agreement; and Exhibits 109, 110, and 111, which were intercompany agreements. They also sought to seal portions of the plaintiffs’ opposition brief that referred to those materials.

The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ administrative motion. It found compelling reasons to seal Brown’s declaration and Exhibit E, Exhibits 8-1 and 8-2, and Exhibits 10, 109, 110, and 111. The court stated that the first group contained information the court did not rely on in its summary-judgment decision and that the latter exhibits contained confidential business information, including information that could harm a designating party’s competitive standing or disclose confidential contract terms or negotiations. The court did not find compelling reasons to seal the opposition brief’s generalized discussion of those documents because that discussion did not reveal specific confidential information.

The court directed the plaintiffs to re-file their opposition brief consistently with the order by February 9, 2024.

Sequoia’s administrative motion

Sequoia sought to seal portions of its reply brief and the deposition transcripts of Rainy Tayal, Michael Juszczakiewicz, Brenda Castellano, and Byron Storms. The National General Defendants, which were the designating parties, did not file the required statement or declaration supporting the sealing of the four transcripts or references to them. The court also stated that Sequoia improperly sought to seal the transcripts in their entirety.

The court therefore unsealed the provisionally sealed materials and directed Sequoia to re-file unredacted versions of its reply brief and the four deposition transcripts by February 9, 2024. The court denied Sequoia’s administrative motion. The order terminated Docket Nos. 355, 359, and 381.