Jama v State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, No. 2:2020cv00652 - Document 52 (W.D. Wash. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER denying Plaintiff's 43 Motion to Seal. The Court directs the Clerk to UNSEAL Docket Entries Nos. 41 , 42 , 44 , and 45 . Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (LH)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
ce[] the 16 competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” 17 Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation and 18 quotation omitted). The Court may only seal records if it “base[s] its decision on a compelling 19 reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or 20 conjecture.” Id. (citation and quotation omitted). “The burden is on the party requesting a 21 protective order to demonstrate that (1) the material in question is a trade secret or other 22 confidential information within the scope of Rule 26(c), and (2) disclosure would cause an 23 identifiable, significant harm.” Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131 24 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO SEAL - 3 Case 2:20-cv-00652-MJP Document 52 Filed 03/18/21 Page 4 of 7 1 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation and quotation omitted). The Local Rules require State Farm to show: (1) 2 “the legitimate private or public interests that warrant the relief sought”; (2) “the injury that will 3 result if the relief sought is not granted”; and (3) “why a less restrictive alternative to the relief 4 sought is not sufficient.” Local Rule 5(g)(3)(B). “Evidentiary support from declarations must be 5 provided where necessary.” Id. 6 B. 7 8 9 10 Sealing Records The Court considers the compelling interests State Farm advances in support of sealing each document or portions thereof. 1. Lowell Testimony State Farm asks the Court to seal portions of Lowell’s deposition testimony that it claims 11 reveals Audatex’s propriety methodology of performing automobile valuations, as well as the 12 data used and the historical changes in the process. (Netze Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.) Netze claims that 13 “Audatex maintains the confidentiality of its automobile valuation methodologies by marking it 14 internally as confidential and by prohibiting its disclosure to persons outside the organization.” 15 (Netze Decl. ¶ 2.) And she avers that disclosure would harm Audatex because it would allow 16 competitors to “co-opt that information for their own automobile valuation methodologies or 17 attempt to cast Audatex’s proprietary automobile valuation methodologies and valuation tools in 18 a negative light.” (id.) 19 Having reviewed the deposition transcript, the Court finds that State Farm has not made a 20 sufficient showing of a compelling interest to support its sealing. Ngethpharat and Kelley point 21 out that Lowell’s testimony on these issues is already largely available to the public. (See Dkt. 22 No. 81.) The fact that this information is already in the public domain undercuts much of Netze’s 23 declaration. Additionally, the information Lowell provides about the methodology and data is 24 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO SEAL - 4 Case 2:20-cv-00652-MJP Document 52 Filed 03/18/21 Page 5 of 7 1 high level and undermines Netze’s claim that its revelation could be “co-opted” by a competitor. 2 Netze herself does not explain how this information could be “co-opted” or how a competitor 3 could use it to Audatex’s disadvantage. Netze also fails to explain how this testimony could be 4 used to cast Audatex in a “negative light.” Presumably Audatex stands behind the quality of its 5 product. But in any event, the claimed harm is overly speculative and does not support State 6 Farm’s burden. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1131. State Farm has not provided compelling interests 7 sufficient to justify sealing this information which goes to the heart of the dispute between the 8 parties on a matter of public interest. The Court therefore DENIES the Motions as to the Lowell 9 Deposition. 10 2. Torelli Report and Harber Report 11 Based on the Court’s review of State Farm’s proposed redactions to the Torelli and 12 Harber Reports, it appears that State Farm only seeks to redact information citing to or quoting 13 from the Lowell deposition. Given the Court’s ruling as to that deposition, the Court finds no 14 basis to seal either report. The Court therefore DENIES the Motions as to these reports. 15 3. Motions for Class Certification 16 State Farm seeks to seal portions of pages 7 and 12 of Jama’s Motion for Class 17 Certification and portions of pages 2, 11, and 12 of Ngethpharat’s and Kelley’s Motion for Class 18 Certification. The sections State Farm identifies cite to and quote from the Lowell deposition. 19 Consistent with the Court’s ruling as to the Lowell deposition, the Court finds no basis to seal 20 these portions of the Motions. The Court therefore DENIES the Motions as to both Motions for 21 Class Certification. 22 23 24 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO SEAL - 5 Case 2:20-cv-00652-MJP Document 52 Filed 03/18/21 Page 6 of 7 1 2 4. Strategic Partnership Request for Proposal Response State Farm asks the Court to seal the entire Strategic Partnership Request for Proposal 3 document that Ngethpharat and Kelley submitted in support of their Motion for Class 4 Certification. (Dkt. No. 75-8.) Netze claims that “[t]he document contains proprietary 5 information regarding Audatex’s total-loss products, Audatex’s valuation methodology, and 6 specific data regarding Audatex’s coverage and ability to provide ‘instant’ valuations.” (Netze 7 Decl. ¶ 6.) She notes that page 58 contains “especially sensitive Audatex material,” but she does 8 not explain why. (Id.) Netze identifies the same claims of harm she proposed as to the Lowell 9 deposition: co-option by competitors and the fear that Audatex’s methodologies will be cast “in a 10 11 negative light.” (Id.) Neither State Farm nor Netze grapples with the fact that this document is already publicly 12 available on the Court’s docket, given State Farm’s earlier failure to provide sufficient evidence 13 to support its request to seal this document. (See Ngethpharat, Dkt. No. 76 at 9.) This strongly 14 cuts against the positions Netze advances. And the Court is unpersuaded by Netze’s declaration, 15 which fails to explain what is “especially” sensitive about this information or how exactly a 16 competitor might use this information to Audatex’s disadvantage. Her declaration provides 17 insufficient justification to seal this already publicly-available document. The Court therefore 18 DENIES the Motion as to this document. 19 5. Autosource’s State Farm Job Aid 20 State Farm asks the Court to seal a document entitled State Farm Job Aid. (Dkt. No. 75- 21 7.) Netze proclaims that this document contains “detailed descriptions of Audatex’s proprietary 22 valuation methodologies and valuation tools . . . including the identity and description of 23 Audatex’s various propriety valuation methodologies and the coverage, by vehicle make and 24 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO SEAL - 6 Case 2:20-cv-00652-MJP Document 52 Filed 03/18/21 Page 7 of 7 1 year, of its products.” (Netze Decl. ¶ 5.) Netze claims that disclosure will allow competitors to 2 co-opt this information and cast Audatex in a “negative light, including, specifically here, any 3 perceived limitations in product ‘coverage.’” (Id.) The Court’s review of the document and 4 Netze’s declaration do not convince it that there is a compelling interest in sealing this document. 5 Other than the information about the vehicles covered, the information is similarly high level to 6 the testimony of Lowell. The information about coverage itself also appears to be 5 years out of 7 date based on the copyright of the document and the dates of vehicle coverages. Netze nowhere 8 explains why or how this stale information could be used to Audatex’s disadvantage. And as 9 Ngethpharat and Kelley point out, Doug Graff has provided detailed testimony about this 10 document, which State Farm has not sought to seal. The claims of harm State Farm advances are 11 too vague and speculative to support sealing this document. The Court therefore finds no basis to 12 seal this document and DENIES the Motion to seal it. CONCLUSION 13 14 State Farm has failed to identify any compelling interest that outweighs the public’s right 15 to inspect the documents at issue. The Court therefore DENIES both Motions. As to the Jama 16 matter, the Court directs the Clerk to UNSEAL Docket Entries Nos. 41, 42, 44, and 45. And as to 17 the Ngethpharat matter, the Court directs the Clerk to UNSEAL Docket Entries Nos. 74 and 75. 18 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel. 19 Dated March 18, 2021. 20 A 21 Marsha J. Pechman United States District Judge 22 23 24 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO SEAL - 7
]]>
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.
