Clark v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
Filing
156
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that D's 122 motion for leave to file under seal is DENIED. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 4/23/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PM)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, JAMIE CLARK, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA *** ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
3:08-cv-00158-LRH-VPC ORDER
Before the court is defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's ("MetLife") motion for leave to file under seal a motion to redact portions of certain pleadings (Doc. #123) filed on February 26, 2010. Doc. #122. MetLife requests leave pursuant to the stipulated protective order regarding confidentiality of discovery material which provides that any party that wishes to file or submit as part of the court record any material subject to the protective order must first file a motion for leave to file such materials under seal with the court. Doc. #65. MetLife argues that its motion refers to materials deemed and designated as confidential. As an initial matter, the court is acutely cognizant of the presumption in favor of public access to papers filed in the district court. See Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995). Therefore, a party seeking to file materials under seal bears the burden of overcoming that presumption by showing that the materials are covered by an operative protective order and are also
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
deserving of confidentiality. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2005). Specifically, a party must "articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure." Kamakana, City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted). Here, MetLife has not put forth compelling reasons for sealing the requested documents. MetLife simply alleges that the "motion refers to and attaches as exhibits materials subject to the protective order." This conclusory allegation is insufficient to overcome MetLife's burden. Accordingly, MetLife's motion for leave shall be denied. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's motion for leave to file under seal (Doc. #122) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 23rd day of April, 2010.
__________________________________ LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
