Volino v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company

Background

The order concerns related actions captioned Volino v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Verardo v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company. Plaintiffs had filed a motion for class certification and sought to seal portions of the supporting papers. Defendants and third-party subpoena respondents Mitchell International, Inc. and J.D. Power also sought to keep certain materials confidential. The filings included defendants’ opposition to class certification, plaintiffs’ reply, plaintiffs’ opposition to defendants’ Daubert motion, expert reports, and exhibits.

Court’s analysis

Judge Schofield explained that the common-law right of public access to judicial documents is strong but not absolute. The court must balance that presumption against competing considerations. Here, the court found that limited redactions and continued sealing were necessary to protect personal information, including a non-party’s home address, and confidential business information that was competitively sensitive and could harm defendants or respondents if disclosed. The court also noted that many of the most sensitive details were not material to the class-certification issues and that the publicly filed materials described the information relevant to the court’s work.

Ruling

The court ordered that the motions to seal at Docket Nos. 170, 187, 194, and 203 were granted in part and denied without prejudice in part. It ordered specified portions of plaintiffs’ opening memorandum, defendants’ opposition, plaintiffs’ reply, expert materials, and listed exhibits to remain under seal. The court stated that certain other documents appeared not to require continued sealing. By March 29, 2023, the parties and respondents were required to confer and either file a letter motion seeking continued sealing or redaction or attach unredacted versions of those documents. The clerk was directed to close the four sealing motions.