Bhopat v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ABHAY BHOPAT, No. 2:24-cv-01174-JHC 12 Plaintiff STIPULATED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 13 v. FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL AND ORDER THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, 16 Defendant.

18 I. Relief Requested 19 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 action – 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 Court will need to consider Defendant’s claim file to resolve the matter. That file is primarily medical records and other documents addressing Plaintiff’s medical condition.

1 A party seeking to seal a document attached to a dispositive motion must provide compelling reasons “that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure[.]” Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). The need to protect medical privacy qualifies as such a “compelling reason.”

Karpenski v. Am. Gen. Life Companies, LLC, No. 2:12-CV-01569-RSM, 2013 WL 5588312 at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 9, 2013) (citing Kamakana). See also, e.g., S.L. by & through J.L. v. Cross, 675 F. Supp. 3d 1138, 1146-47 (W.D. Wash. 2023) (granting motion to file ERISA record under seal because it contained sensitive personal health information); Cont'l Med.

Transp. LLC v. Health Care Serv. Corp., No. C20-0115-JCC, 2021 WL 2072524, at *4 (W.D.

Wash. May 24, 2021), aff'd, No. 21-35481, 2022 WL 2045385 (9th Cir. June 7, 2022) (same); Gary v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 3:17-CV-01414-HZ, 2018 WL 1811470, at *3 (D. Or. Apr. 17, 2018) (“[t]he parties have not presented, and the Court is not aware of, any cases where medical information was not allowed to be filed under seal under the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.”).

17 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. Sensitive information is found throughout the claim file.

As certified below, the parties discussed whether redaction would be a suitable alternative. Due to the extensive redaction that would be necessary, the parties believe redaction is not a reasonable alternative. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) states that a “court may order that a filing be made under seal without redaction” and the parties respectfully move the Court to so order here.

1 III. Loc al Rule 5 (g)(3)(A) Certification 2 The parties certify pursuant to Local Rule 5(g)(3)(A) that the undersigned attorneys conferred on December 19, 2024, and agreed redaction was not a reasonable means to protect Plaintiff’s medical privacy as the documents would need to be so extensively redacted.

IV. Conclusion 7 The parties respectfully move the Court to order that the administrative record in this action be filed under seal, without redaction.

9 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 13th day of January 2025.

LAW OFFICE OF MEL CRAWFORD By: s/Mel Crawford 13 Mel Crawford, WSBA # 22930 Attorney for Plaintiff

16 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP By: s/Lauren Watts 18 Lauren Watts, WSBA# 44064 Attorneys for Defendant 1 ORDER 2 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 5.2(d), the record need not be redacted.

6 DATED this 13th day of January 2025.

9 CJ ok 4 Chur 10 John H. Chun United States District Judge SUPORTE MOTONES AVERT No. 2:24-cv-01174-JHC