State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Peter J. Hanson, P.C., C16-1085RSL. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20171114f27
Visitors: 11
Filed: Nov. 13, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 13, 2017
Summary: ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO SEAL ROBERT S. LASNIK , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on "Defendants' Motion to File Certain Exhibits Under Seal." Dkt. # 67. Having reviewed the memoranda and exhibits submitted by the parties, the Court finds that the medical records and information regarding the non-party patients whose treatment is at issue in this litigation should remain confidential to protect the privacy of those patients. In addition, plaintiffs have shown that certai
Summary: ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO SEAL ROBERT S. LASNIK , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on "Defendants' Motion to File Certain Exhibits Under Seal." Dkt. # 67. Having reviewed the memoranda and exhibits submitted by the parties, the Court finds that the medical records and information regarding the non-party patients whose treatment is at issue in this litigation should remain confidential to protect the privacy of those patients. In addition, plaintiffs have shown that certain..
More
ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO SEAL
ROBERT S. LASNIK, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on "Defendants' Motion to File Certain Exhibits Under Seal." Dkt. # 67. Having reviewed the memoranda and exhibits submitted by the parties, the Court finds that the medical records and information regarding the non-party patients whose treatment is at issue in this litigation should remain confidential to protect the privacy of those patients. In addition, plaintiffs have shown that certain claims handling documents are entitled to protection from public viewing because they contain unique information, were developed and maintained in confidence at substantial cost, and would put plaintiffs at a competitive disadvantage if disclosed.
Docket # 70 shall remain under seal. The public, however, has a significant interest in the opinions and analysis of the experts in this litigation in that they are important to an understanding if the issues and the Court's resolution thereof. A balance between the private and public interests can be achieved by redacting all patient names and other personal identifying information from Exhibits E, F, G, and H (Dkt. # 70-3 through # 70-6) and filing redacted copies of those exhibits in the record. Defendants shall do so within fourteen days of the date of this Order. Defendants shall also file for public view the portions of Exhibit C (Dkt. # 70-1) that plaintiffs agree are not confidential, namely SF0000104PROD, SF0000080PROD, and SF0000081PROD.1
FootNotes
1. LCR 5(g)(1) requires parties to meet and confer regarding whether a designating party will withdraw the confidential designation or will agree to redactions so that a seal is not necessary. Defendants' email notice to plaintiffs that they intended to file a thousand pages of documents within a few hours and would like plaintiffs' input on the confidentiality designations is not a meaningful attempt to explore alternatives to filing the documents under seal.
Source: Leagle