RLI Insurance Company v. Nexus Services, Inc., No. 5:2018cv00066 - Document 103 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 10/29/2018. (jv)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN TH E U N ITED STATE S D IST RICT CO U RT FO R TH E W E STERN D ISTRICT O F W RG IN IA H ARRISON BU RG D W ISIO N CLERK' S OFFIGE U.S,DIST.COURT AT ROANOKE,VA FILED OCT J 2 2gjg Ju ez R1.1INSURANCE COMPANY, D , Ex c Plaintiffy CivilA ction N o.5:18-CV -00066 N EX US SERW CE S,IN C., By: M ichaelF.U rbansld D efendanty ChiefUnited StatesDistrictJudge JUAN VALOY,etal., Intervenors. M EM O RAN D U M O PIN ION PbinéffRT,IlnsuranceCompanyr<RT,I'')flledamodontosealitsmodonfor secondpreliminaryinjunction.ECFNo.92.Percommunicadonswith thecourtandall pardes,defendantNexusServices,Inc.rfNexus'')doesnotobjecttoRT,I'smotiontoseal. The couttwiE T AKR U N D E R ADW SEM EN T them odon to seal. 1. RLI Insurance Company v. Nexus Services, Inc. LocalRule9 requiresaparty seeldng to sealdocum entsto provide the couttwith Doc. 103 T<the non-confidendalreasonswhy sealing isnecessary,itw luding thereasonswhy alternadvesto sealing areinadequate.''W .D .Va.LocalR.9.RT,Iexplained thatthiscourt's preliminaryinjuncdon orderprohibitsdisclosureofinformaéon obtained from the injuncdon,and thatFedemlRuleofCivilProcedure65requiresmodonsforpreliminary Dockets.Justia.com / 4 injuncéontobesupportedbyevidence.ECFNo.92,at1-2.RT,lnotesthatLocalRule9 states:ffgpjordonsofadoclzmentcannotbeflledorplaced underseal- onlytheentire doctzm entm ay be sealed.''Id.at2. Thecommon law ptesumesarightto inspectand copyjudicialrecordsand docum ents. SeeIn ReU. S.foranOrderPursuantto 18U.S.C.Section270397,707F.3d 283,290 (4th Cir.2013).Tlaispresumpéon ofaccessmaybeovercomeifcompeting interestsoutweigh thepublic'sinterestin access.Seeida;Rushfordv.N ew YorkerM a azine Inc.,846F.2d249,253(4thCir.1988)9InreW ash.PostCo.,807F.2d383,390(4thCir. 1986).Thecommonlaw rightofaccessisbuttressed bytheffmorerigotous''rightofaccess provided by theFirstAm endm ent,w hich appliesto am ore narrow classofdocum ents, inclucling docllm entsffm adepartofadispositivem odon''in a civilcase.SeeVa.D ep'tof StatePolicev.W ash.Post,386F.2d567,576(4th Cir.2004)(citingRushford,846F.2dat 252).IfacouttrecordissubjecttotheFirstAmendmenttightofpublicaccess,therecord m ay besealed Tçonly on the basisofacom pelling governm entalinterest,and onlyifthe denialisnarrowly tailored to serve thatinterest.';Stonev.Univ.ofM d.M ed.S s.Co .,855 F.2d 178,180 (4th Cit.1988)(ciéngRushford,846F.2dat253). Because theFirstAm enclm entand the com m on 1aw provide differentlevelsof protecdon,itisnecessaty to determ ine the source ofthetightofaccessbefore acourtcan accurately weigh the com peting interestsatstake.SeeVa.D e 'tofStatePolice,386 F.3d at 576.Here,RI,lpursuessealingamoéonfotpreliminaryinjuncdonanditssuppordng m em orandum ,declaraéons,and exhibits.Accorflingly,them orestdngentFitstAm enclm ent righto/publicaccessapplies.Seectr.forAutoSafetyv.ChryslerGm .,LLC,809F.3d 1092, 2 1103(9th Cir.2016)(<tDuetothestrongpresumpéonforpublicaccessandthenatureofthe instantmotion forapreliminaryinjuncdon,Chryslermustdemonstratecompellingreasons tokeepthedocumentsunderseal.'');PublickerIndus.,Inc.v.Cohen,733F.2d1059(3rd C9.1984)(finclingaFirstAmendmentrightofaccesstopreliminaryitjuncéonproceeHings); BaerCro sciencelnc.v.S n entaCro Prot.LLC,979F.Supp.2d653,656(M.D.N.C. 2013)(<fTheCotzttconcludesthatthebdefingand exhibitsflledin connecdon withmodons seeldnginjuncdvereliefaresubjecttothepublic'sFirstAmendmentrightofaccess.'). To overcom ethe FirstAm endm entrightofaccess,theparty seeldng to keep the informadon sealedmustpresentspecifcreasonsto jusdfyrestrice gaccesstothe informadon.SeelnreIinihtPub.Co.,743F.2d231,234(4thCir.1984)9seealsoPressEnter.Co.v.Su er.CouttofCal.,478U.S.1,15(1986)(<<TheFirstAmendmentrightof accesscannotbeovercomeby ga)conclusoryasseréon.').Thecourtalsomustcomplywit. h cenainptocedutalrequitementswhen presented+ t.14arequesttosealjudicialtecordsor doctzm ents.SeeV a.D e 'tofStatePolice,386 F.3d at576.The couztm ustfustgivepublic noticeoftherequestto sealand areasonableoppo> nitytochallengeit.J-daThecollt'tmust also considerlessdrasticalternadvesto sealing.Id.lfthe couttdecidesto seal,itm uststate thereasonsforitsdecision supportedbyspecihcfindings,andthereasonsforrejecdng alternaévesto sealing.Id. II. RT,Irequeststhatitsmotion forsecondpreliminaryinjuncéon,memorandum in support,and supporting declaradonsand exllibitsbeplaced under seal.RI,IVice President ofSurety Clnim sIraE.Sussm an,RT, IClnim sExnm inerLauta Piispanen,and forensic 3 accountantPeterFascia subm itted declaradonsin supportofthe m odon.M s.Piispanen's declaradon includesthreeattached exlzibits:(1)aSeptember28,2018letteraddressed to her from theU .S.D epartm entofH om eland Security,with the attachm entofa com plaintftled byNexusandothersagainstthegovernmentin federalcotut;(2)an October5,2018letter sentbyRT, 1'scounseltoNexus'counselregardingademandforexoneradon;and (3)an O ctober10,2018 letteyin response from N exus'counselto RT,I'scounsel,with the attachmentsofa partiallyredacteddecision byan immigration judgeand ahighlighted copy ofU.S.Im m igraéonsand Custom sEnforcem ent'sBond M anagem entH andbook. Thedocketing ofRT-1'sm otion to sealconsdtaztesffpublicnodce.''See Stone,855 F.2d at181.The Tfpublic opportunity to challenge''requirem entism etwhen thecourtallow s sufcienttimeforobjecdonstobemade.SeeMillenrlium lnor anicChems.Ltd.v.Nat'l UatonFirelns.Co.,893F.Supp.2d715,743@ .Md.2012)9Erichsenv.RBC Ca italMkts. LLC,883F.Supp.2d 562,575 (E.D.N.C.2012);Honeycuttv.CityofRockingham,N.C., No.1:09cv912,2012WL 360027,at*1(M.D.N.C.Feb.2,2012)(finding thatten dayson thepublicdocketwasasufficienttimeforobjectionstobemadetoamodontoseal).Hete, RI,I'sm otion to sealwasflled on O ctober22,2018,wllich w asdoneffreasonablyin advance ofFhisCourt)deciing theissue''oneweek later.SeeIn reKnightPub.Co.,743F.2d 231, 235(4th Cir.1984). H ow ever,RT, 1hasnotdem onsttated thatlessdrasticalternadvesareunavo able.The courtunderstandsw hy IUwIm oved to sealtllism odon and docum entsgiven thatthe informaéonin themodonresultedfrom thefttstpreliminaryitjuncdon'sdisclosures. H owever,the court'spurposeoftheprotecéve orderwasto ptotectagainstthe disclosureof 4 N exus'clientslnighly personaland sensidveinform atbn.Thepapersflled by RI,Iappearto almostexclusivelyrelyonNexus'financialinfotmadonfrom thepzeliminaryitjuncdon disclosures.In thesepapers,thereappeatsto only be asttay refetence to the nam eofone clientin an attachm entto M s.Piispanen'sdeclaraéon.Tllisreference could beredacted and could com ply wit.h the FirstAm endm ent'spubliccliscloslzrerequirem entsfora disposiéve m odon such asthisone.N eitherparty hasexplained why lessdrasdcalternaéveswould not suffke to protecttheitortheitclients'interestsin conûdentiality,such asthe subm ission of redacteddeclaraéonsandexhibits.Relianceonthepreliminaryinjunctionorderaloneis insuffkient. Because the docum entsand inform ation referenced in RT,I'sm odon generally do not im pose upon theprivacy ofN exus'clients,orotherwiseobviouslyim plicate the Fizst Am endm entdghtofaccess,the courtcannotstatereasonsin supportofwhy them odon and suppordng m em orandlzm ,declaradons,and exhibitsshould besealed in theirentirety. NeitherRT, InorNexushaveprovidedsuffkientjusdficadonforsealingthisinformadonin itsentiretyeither,oraddressed whethertheFirstAm enclm entisthe appropriate standatd to apply here.Cf.K in CoalChevroletCo.v.G en.M otorsCo.,N o.CIV.A.2:12-5992,.2012 R 5265913,at*2(S.D.W .Va.Oct.23,2012)(fTIN1odiscussionisofferedbydefendants concerning whetherthe FirstA m endm entrightofpublic accessèxtendsto doclzm ents submittedin connecdon with apreliminaryinjuncdon motion.'l.overall,RT, Ihasnot offeredafacmalbasisuponwhich thecourtcapmakespecifk factualfinclingsjuséfying ' sealing and showing thatalternaévesto sealing would beinsufhcient,astequited bylaw . 111. Accordingly,the courtwillT AKE U N DE R A DW SEM EN T RLl'sm oéon to seal. ECF N o.92.The Clerk willbeD IRECTE D to tem porarily sealM l'sm odon and suppoMngdocuments.lkLIandNexusV*l1havefourteen (14)daysfrom thedateoftlzis opiniontosubmitasupplementalsubmission setfingforth:(1)speciûcfactual representadonstojustifysealingthemoéon,memorandllm,declarations,andexllibits,and an explanadon ofwhy alternadvesto sealing wotlld notprovide sufûcientprotecdon, keepinginmindtheFirstAmendmentrightofaccesssetforthabove;(2)tedactedcopiesof the m odon,m em orandum ,declarations,and exhibitsalong with specihcrepresentadonsas towhythepardcularredacdonsarenecessary;or(3)nodcethatRT,liswithdrawingthe exh bitsfrom consideration by thecotutin connecéon with them odon to seal.Iftleither party fllessupplem entalsubmissions,the courtwilldirectthe clerk to unsealthe m odon and itssuppordng docum entsafterfourteen days. An appropriate O rderwillbeentered. Eràeked: /6)s. g((g ' * N@zl. .* r'h .' . . k M ic.ae1F v * . J ,, .y .' # 1 ?j.4t.'. ;. f q.;i1 ,' . -.' v! . '' .$ ';'.. '' r .' 'J1' 1' ;..'é.'..f. :...' .''.'r.* anski.. ChlefUnited StatesDistrictludge 6 k'...
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
