Ellis v. Government Employee Ins. Co.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- STANLEY ELLIS, No. 2:22-cv-01580 WBS JDP 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Maryland corporation, Defendant.

----oo0oo---- Plaintiff Stanley Ellis requests to seal exhibits pursuant to federal and state laws protecting the confidentiality of trade secrets. (Docket No. 31.) See 18 U.S.C. § 1835; Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.

A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public access. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Where a party seeks to seal an attachment related to a dispositive pleading, the party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79 (citations omitted). The court then must balance the competing interests of the public and the party seeking to keep records secret. Id. at 1179.

7 Plaintiff requests to seal a GEICO “Feature Summary” spanning Bates No. CIQ000001-03 in support of its opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment.1 (Docket No. 29-1 at 28-30.) Upon review, it is not clear to the court how anything in the Feature Summary constitutes a trade secret. Neither does plaintiff provide any indication why its public disclosure “would irreparably harm [defendants].” (Docket No. 31-1 ¶ 6.) It is further unclear why sealing the entire Feature Summary is necessary to prevent it from being used “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing,” see Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 434 U.S. 589, 598 (1978), or how disclosure of the document would invade defendant’s or a third party’s privacy. Finally, sealing this information may prevent the public from understanding the basis upon which the court makes its decisions, and plaintiff fails to explain how its harm outweighs public policies favoring disclosure. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.

24 Given the public policies favoring disclosure and The court notes that plaintiff seeks to seal documents produced by defendant “pursuant to [the belief that public disclosure would irreparably harm defendant], the spirit of [the parties’ stipulated protective order] and conduct of the parties in this litigation.” (Docket No. 31-1 ¶ 6.) ene eee eee EE NO OO plaintiff’s failure to show compelling reasons to seal the document at issue, the request will be denied. The court may consider a more tailored request, such as redacting a portion of the Feature Summary, which specifically states the basis for sealing or redacting this document and why defendant’s harm outweighs public policies favoring disclosure.

7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s request to seal (Docket No. 31) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without || prejudice.

10 . .

11 | Dated: January 24, 2024 a tle A hh be WILLIAM B. SHUBB 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE