1

2

3

4

5

6

7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 THOMAS KOVATS, Case No. 3:22-cv-00764-TSH 12 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 13 PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTION TO FILE ADMINISTRATIVE 14 vs. RECORD UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 7-11 AND 79-5 15 HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Honorable Thomas S. Hixson 16 Defendant. 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 27 1 This matter involves the review of a denial of long-term disability benefits under a group 2 insurance plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). 3 In support of the parties’ upcoming motions for judgment as a matter of law, the parties will be 4 citing and relying on Plaintiff Thomas Kovats’ 2,258-page “Administrative Record” (“AR”) with 5 Defendant Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company (“Hartford”). In anticipation of those 6 motions, Plaintiff has filed an administrative motion to file under seal the AR, which contains a 7 voluminous amount of private medical information, including medical information not germane 8 to the action. No party in this action sought to seal any information referenced in the parties’ 9 briefs or the Court’s opinions. Hartford does not oppose this motion. 10 I. LEGAL STANDARD 11 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 12 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n,

(9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 13 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,

, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard 14 derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including 15 judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong 16 presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotation 17 omitted). To overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record 18 attached to a dispositive motion must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific 19 factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 20 disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process” and “significant 21 public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotation omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to 22 outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such 23 ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to 24 gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade 25 secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,

(1978)). “The 26 mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or 27 exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.”

1 The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks 2 keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to 3 seal certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the 4 || factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” /d. 5 Il. ANALYSIS 6 The Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard to Plaintiff's request to seal the AR 7 || because it is more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action. The AR consists of 8 || highly sensitive and otherwise confidential medical records and documents. And the Court finds 9 || that the public’s interest in disclosure of this information is low because information in the Clai 10 || File germane to the merits of this case has not been sealed. The Court thus finds that the sensitiv 11 nature and intended confidentiality of this information meets the compelling reasons standard. 12 || Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to seal. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 16 \IDateq: August 22, 2022 7 AS \. | Y 7 Honorable Thomas S. Hixson United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ADMIN MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL Case No. 3:22-cv-00764-TSH