Blue v. USI Insurance Services LLC

1 THE HONORABLE JOHN H. CHUN 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE ZED BLUE and ROBIN BLUE, a married couple, No.: 2:21-cv-01328-JHC Plaintiff, STIPULATED MOTION TO FILE UNDER 11 SEAL v. 12 NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: USI INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, a December 16, 2022 Delaware limited liability company; CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S OF LONDON through HARLOCK MURRAY UNDERWRITING LTD as per UMRN B1353DH1700422000; and THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Stock Insurance Company, 17 Defendant.

19 I. RELIEF REQUESTED 20 Pursuant to LCR 5(2)(B), Defendant Hartford Fire Insurance Company and Plaintiffs request the Court grant permission for Hartford to file, under seal, an economic damages report prepared by Plaintiffs’ expert—Solis Financial Forensics, LLC (Solis Report).

23 Hartford intends to file this report in connection with its reply in support of Hartford’s Motion to Compel.1 1DktNo. 38.

1 II. FACTS 2 This action concerns an insurance claim arising out of damage sustained by a commercial fishing vessel—the FV ROBIN BLUE. On November 28, 2022, Hartford filed a Motion to Compel requesting, in part, that the Court order an inspection of the propeller shaft of the vessel, which Plaintiffs alleged was damaged.2 6 In the opposition to the motion, Plaintiffs argued that the requested inspection is “disproportionately burdensome and expensive.”3 In reply, Hartford intends to file the Solis Report. This report contains personal and corporate financial information, however, including reference to Plaintiffs’ personal tax documents. Given the confidential nature of the Solis Report, Plaintiffs and Hartford met and conferred, as required by LCR 5(g)(3)(A), and agree it should be filed under seal.4 12 III. LEGAL AUTHORITY AND ARGUMENT 13 Local Civil Rule 5(g)(3)(B) requires that, in a motion to seal, the parties explain the following: (1) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant the relief sought; (2) the injury that will result if the relief sought is not granted; (3) and why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not sufficient. When moving to seal a document, the applicable legal standard is generally whether a compelling reason exists to keep the information out of the public view.5 “Compelling reasons” exist when the document at issue “might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of records to gratify 2Id.at 2-4.

23 3Dkt No. 41,at3.

24 4Hartford certifies that the meet and confer requirement in LCR 5(g)(3)(A) has been satisfied.

Declaration of Matthew J. Sekits in Support of Stipulated Motion to File Under Seal, dated December 16, 2022.

26 5See Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).

1 private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.”6 2 These elements are satisfied here. Plaintiffs have a legitimate interest in keeping their own personal and corporate financial information private. If this motion is denied, and the Solis Report becomes available for public viewing, it could be used improperly by Plaintiffs’ competitors in the fishing industry or others to take advantage of Plaintiffs’ current financial position.7 Any less restrictive alternative would be insufficient because it would exclude too many important details concerning the cause and extent of Plaintiffs’ alleged economic damages, which Hartford believes to be relevant to its Motion to Compel.

9 IV. CONCLUSION 10 For these reasons, Plaintiffs and Hartford request that this motion be granted, and that Hartford be permitted to file the Solis Report under seal.

12 DATED: December 16, 2022 TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC

15 By: /s/ Chase C. Alvord By: /s/ Matthew J. Sekits Chase C. Alvord, WSBA #26080 Matthew J. Sekits, WSBA #26175 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Caitlyn Mathews, WSBA #60055 Attorneys for Plaintiff E-mail: [email protected] 18 Attorneys for Defendant Hartford Fire Insurance Company

24 6 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

25 7 Clean Crawls, Inc. v. Crawl Space Cleaning Pros, Inc., 2020 WL 978267, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Feb.

28, 2020) (granting a motion to file under seal two expert reports on economic damages, in the interest of keeping business, financial, and proprietary information from public view).

1 ORDER 2 IT IS SO ORDERED.

3 DATED this 16th day of December , 2022.

A ______________________________ 6 HONORABLE JOHN H. CHUN United States District Judge 4857-7468-7300.1 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on December 16, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF e-filing system which will send notification of such filing to the persons listed below: Chase C. Alvord via hand delivery.

TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC via first class mail.

6 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 via email Seattle, WA 98101 CM/ECF E-service [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff David R. West via hand delivery.

11 FOSTER GARVEY PC via first class mail.

1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3000 via email Seattle, WA 98101 CM/ECF E-service [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant USI Michael A. Barcott via hand delivery.

Daniel P. Barcott via first class mail.

17 Lafcadio Darling via email HOLMES WEDDLE & BARCOTT, P.C. CM/ECF E-service 3101 Western Ave, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London through Harlock Murray Underwriting, Ltd. 25 Dated: December 16, 2022.

26 /s/ Freida Mason Freida Mason, Legal Assistant