Hicks v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, No. 2:2021cv00436 - Document 12 (W.D. Wash. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER granting Parties' 11 Stipulated Motion for Leave to File the Administrative Record under Seal. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SR)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hicks v. Prudential Insurance Company of America Doc. 12 Hon. Ricardo S. Martinez UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE H MORGAN HICKS, Plaintiff, v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, No. 2:21–cv–00436–RSM STIPULATED MOTION TO FILE THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD UNDER SEAL AND ORDER NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: May 19, 2021 Defendant. For good cause, the parties respectfully move the Court to grant their stipulated motion to allow the Administrative Record to be filed under seal. STIPULATED MOTION TO FILE THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD UNDER SEAL 1. In light of distance and COVID-19 precautionary measures, the parties satisfied their meet and confer requirement by teleconference, conducted on May 11, 2021. The participants at this conference were: a) Jesse ! # "# # %# ( ) #%& " ((( %#) ( %#'$ #! Dockets.Justia.com Cowell, Attorney for Plaintiff; and b) Julie Kamps, Attorney for Defendant (pro hac vice). 2. First, Plaintiff submits, and Defendant does not dispute for purposes of this case only, that a motion to seal the Administrative Record (“AR” or “Administrative Record”) is appropriate in this case, because it involves a dispute over Plaintiff’s eligibility for long-term disability (“LTD”) benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. §1001, et seq. (“ERISA”). Plaintiff asserts that this LTD benefits case is analogous to Social-Security Appeals, in that the Administrative Record contains highly sensitive medical information and Plaintiff’s privacy interests far outweigh the public interest in access to the files. Therefore, just as the public is limited to accessing files in Social-Security Appeals under FRCP 5.2(c), Plaintiff asserts that this motion to file the AR under seal is appropriate in this LTD benefits case. In the interest of efficiency, and to avoid unnecessary motion practice, Defendant agrees to filing the AR under seal in this matter. In doing so, Defendant does not waive its right to assert in any other matter, ERISA or otherwise, that the AR should not be filed under seal. 3. Second, the parties agree that a motion to seal is more economical, from both a human and financial resource perspective, than the alternative of redacting the Administrative Record. More specifically, the AR produced by Defendant contains thousands of pages and is peppered throughout with numerous references to Plaintiff’s social security number and date of birth, which would plainly require considerable time and effort to redact. Further, given Plaintiff’s assertion of the minimal public interest in accessing the highly sensitive medical information of Plaintiff that comprises a significant portion of the Administrative Record, the parties respectfully submit that the expense and ! # "# # %# ( ) #%& " ((( %#) ( %#'$ #! burden of redaction outweighs the more economical option of simply filing the AR under seal in this matter. 4. Pursuant to LCR 5(g)(3)(A), the parties certify that: A. The conferencing details noted above are true and correct. B. The need to file the Administrative Record under seal was discussed with particular emphasis on: 1) the sensitive nature of the medical information contained therein; and 2) undue burdens implicated by the alternative of redacting an Administrative Record numbering in the thousands of pages. C. Attempts to minimize the amount of material filed under seal would be impractical and unduly burdensome, since the Administrative Record is principally composed of either: 1) the highly sensitive medical records of Plaintiff; or 2) discussion of such highly sensitive information in the context of LTD benefits determinations. Further, the portions that would need to be redacted if they are not filed under seal are peppered over thousands of pages throughout the entire AR. D. Redaction appears to be the only alternative to filing under seal. Plaintiff asserts that filing under seal is the better alternative for the reasons specifically given above. For purposes of this case only, Defendant agrees to filing the Administrative Record under seal. 5. declaration briefly describing discussion that: A. Pursuant to LCR 5(g)(3)(B), counsel provides the following Plaintiff asserts that by close analogy, FRCP 5.2(c) provides an applicable legal standard for filing the Administrative Record under seal. B. More specifically, just as public access is limited to the highly sensitive medical information which permeates the files of Social-Security ! # "# # %# ( ) #%& " ((( %#) ( %#'$ #! Appeals under FRCP 5.2(c), Plaintiff asserts that the legitimate privacy interest of Plaintiff in protecting highly sensitive medical information within this LTD benefits case far outweighs any legitimate public interest in free and unfettered access, thereby warranting the relief of the Court’s allowance to file the Administrative Record under seal. C. In the interest of efficiency, and to avoid unnecessary motion practice, Defendant agrees to filing the AR under seal in this matter. In doing so, Defendant does not waive its right to assert in any other matter, ERISA or otherwise, that the AR should not be filed under seal. D. Plaintiff asserts that his highly sensitive medical information would be unnecessarily available to public access, which could also create irreparable harm by misuse of such information by private persons and the publication of such information. E. The less restrictive alternative of redaction is not sufficient, for the unduly burdensome reasons noted above. In conclusion, for the reasons provided, the parties respectfully move the Court to grant the stipulated motion to file the AR under seal. Respectfully submitted this 19th day of May, 2021. ROY LAW GROUP s/ Jesse Cowell Jesse Cowell, WSBA 50725 1000 S.W. Broadway, Suite 900 Portland, OR 97205 PH: 503.206.4313 jesse@roylawgroup.com Attorney for Plaintiff ! # "# # %# ( ) #%& " ((( %#) ( %#'$ #! SEYFARTH SHAW LLP s/ Julie M. Kamps Julie M. Kamps, IL Bar # 6286872 (appearing Pro Hac Vice) 233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 8000 Chicago, IL 60606 PH: (312) 460-5000 jkamps@seyfarth.com SEYFARTH SHAW LLP s/ Helen McFarland Helen McFarland, WSBA 51012 999 Third Avenue Suite 4700 Seattle, Washington 98104-4041 PH: (206) 946-4923 hmcfarland@seyfarth.com Attorneys for Defendant ! # "# # %# ( ) #%& " ((( %#) ( %#'$ #! ORDER Based on the Stipulated Motion to File the Administrative Record under Seal, it is ORDERED that the stipulated motion is granted for good cause shown and the parties shall now file the Administrative Record under seal. Dated this WK day of May, 2021. ____________________________ The Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Presented by: ROY LAW GROUP By: s/ Jesse Cowell Jesse Cowell, WSBA 50725 Attorney for Plaintiff SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP By: s/ Julie M. Kamps Julie M. Kamps, IL Bar # 6286872 (appearing Pro Hac Vice) By: s/ Helen McFarland Helen McFarland, WSBA 51012 Attorneys for Defendant ! # "# # %# ( ) #%& " ((( %#) ( %#'$ #! CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on May 19, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. DATED this 19th day of May, 2021. s/ Jesse Cowell Jesse Cowell, WSBA 50725 Roy Law Group 1000 S.W. Broadway, Suite 900 Portland, OR 97205 PH: 503.206.4313 FAX: 855.344.1726 jesse@roylawgroup.com ! # "# # %# ( ) #%& " ((( %#) ( %#'$ #! ORDER Based on the Stipulated Motion to File the Administrative Record under Seal, it is ORDERED that the stipulated motion is granted for good cause shown and the parties shall now file the Administrative Record under seal. Dated this 27th day of May, 2021. A ____________________________ The Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Presented by: ROY LAW GROUP By: s/ Jesse Cowell Jesse Cowell, WSBA 50725 Attorney for Plaintiff SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP By: s/ Julie M. Kamps Julie M. Kamps, IL Bar # 6286872 (appearing Pro Hac Vice) By: s/ Helen McFarland Helen McFarland, WSBA 51012 Attorneys for Defendant ! ! ! %# ( ) #%& " ((( %#) ( %#'$ #!
]]>
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.
