Costello v. Life Insurance Company of North America

HON. RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE DANIEL COSTELLO, 12 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:20-cv-00277-RSM 13 v. STIPULATED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNREDACTED “ADMINISTRATIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF RECORD” UNDER SEAL AND [PROPOSED] NORTH AMERICA, ORDER Defendant. NOTED FOR HEARING: 04/17/2020 I. Relief Requested The parties respectfully move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) and Local Civil Rule 5(g), to order that the “Administrative Record” in this matter – the defendant insurance company’s claim file – be filed under seal, without redactions.

II. Relevant Facts and Legal Authority This action arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. The parties agree that the Court will need to consider Defendant’s claim file regarding Plaintiff’s long-term disability claim. Such files have come to be called the “Administrative Record” in ERISA benefit cases. Here, that 2,941-page file is primarily medical records and other documents addressing Plaintiff’s medical conditions.

4 Although Local Civil Rule 5(g) establishes a “strong presumption in favor of public access to the Court’s files,” this Court recognizes the “need to protect medical privacy qualifies in general as a ‘compelling reason’” to allow records to be filed under seal. Karpenski v. Am.

7 Gen. Life Companies, LLC, No. 2:12-CV-01569-RSM, 2013 WL 5588312 at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 9, 2013), (quoting Local Civil Rule 5(g) and Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006)). See also Macon v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 2013 WL 10 951013, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 12, 2013) (granting unopposed motion to seal medical records given the “private nature of the documents at issue”).

12 Local Civil Rule 5.2(c) states that “in an action for benefits under the Social Security Act” the “administrative record must be filed under seal” because those “actions are entitled to special treatment due to the prevalence of sensitive information and the volume of filings.” Id. That reasoning applies to this action for ERISA disability benefits. Sensitive information concerning the Plaintiff is found throughout the claim file.

17 As certified below, the parties discussed whether redaction would be a suitable alternative. Due to the volume of the record, and that it would require extensive redaction, the parties believe redaction is not a reasonable alternative. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d) provides that the “court may order that a filing be made under seal without redaction” and the parties respectfully move the Court to so order here.

22 / / / / / / / / / / 1 III. Local Rule 5.2(g)(3)(A) Certification 2 The parties certify pursuant to Local Rule 5.2(g)(3)(A) that attorney Mel Crawford representing Plaintiff and attorney Charles Huber representing Defendant conferred by telephone on April 17, 2020, to discuss filing the record under seal and to explore redaction and other alternatives to filing under seal. They agreed redaction was not a reasonable means to protect Plaintiff’s medical privacy, because the documents would need to be so heavily redacted.

7 IV. Conclusion 8 The parties respectfully move the Court to order that the “Administrative Record” in this matter be filed under seal.

10 IT IS SO STIPULATED THIS 17th day of April 2020.

11 LAW OFFICE OF MEL CRAWFORD 13 By s/Mel Crawford Mel Crawford, WSBA # 22930 14 [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff LANE POWELL PC 18 By: s/Charles C. Huber Charles C. Huber, WSBA No. 18941 19 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant 1 ORDER 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court GRANTS the parties’ stipulated motion and ORDERS that the administrative record in this action be filed and maintained under seal. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d), the record need not be redacted.

5 DATED this 17th day of April, 2020.

A 9 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE