United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2021

North American Company for Life and Health Insurance v. Swall

North American Company for Life and Health Insurance v. Swall
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided October 27, 2021
North American Company for Life and Health Insurance v. Swall

Trial Court Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NORTH AMERICAN COMPANY FOR No. 1:20-cv-00384-NONE-SAB LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE, Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO SEAL v. 14 (Doc. No. 32.)

MICHELLE SWALL, Defendant.

18 North American Company for Life and Health Insurance has requested leave to file its motion for summary judgment and related exhibits and materials under seal pursuant to L.R. 141.

20 (Doc. No. 32.) Defendant does not object. (Id., ¶ 3.) The court has examined the records for which sealing is requested and finds that they consist either entirely or very substantially of materials pertaining to defendant’s sensitive medical history and/or plaintiff’s confidential underwriting guidelines.

24 When a party seeks to seal documents related to a dispositive motion, it must demonstrate “compelling reasons” for doing so. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2016). “Courts throughout the Ninth Circuit have recognized that the need to protect medical privacy generally qualifies as a compelling reason to seal records.” Weisberg v. Takeda Pharms. U.S.A., Inc., No. CV 18-784 PA (JCX), 2018 WL 6252458, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July | 3, 2018) (collecting cases). Similarly, sealing or redaction is appropriate for material that | contains sensitive and confidential business information that might “harm a litigant’s competitive | standing.” See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097. Internal insurance underwriting guidelines | qualify for this treatment.

5 Therefore, the court finds compelling reasons to seal the requested documents and further | finds that redaction is not a practical option because the sealable material is widely interspersed | within the motion and related documentation and extensive redaction would result in a publicly | available filing that would be of no value. Accordingly, the request to seal (Doc. No. 32) is | GRANTED.

10 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a " "| pated: _ October 26, 2021 LL 1 Yrod 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.