United States District Court, D. New Jersey, Camden Vicinage
SCHNEIDER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the “Consolidated Motion
to Seal” (“motion”) [Doc. No. 272] filed by
plaintiff Liberty International Underwriters Canada
(“plaintiff”). Defendants Scottsdale Insurance
Company and Infinity Access, LLC (collectively,
“defendants”) do not oppose this motion. The
Court exercises its discretion to decide the motion without
oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; L. Civ. R. 78.1.
For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part.
parties seek to redact and seal the following:
• Exhibits 21, 26 and 39 to Scottsdale's Motion for
Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 215-3, 215-5 and 215-6]
• Exhibits I, K and L to defendants' Motion to
Strike [Doc. No. 220-2, 220-3 and 220-4]
• Exhibits 20, 27 and 46 to plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 222, 222-1 and 222-2]
• Exhibits 18, 23, 24 and 25 to Infinity Access'
Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 259-3, 259-6 and 259-7]
• Exhibits P and W to plaintiff's Opposition to
Infinity Access's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No.
268-1 and 268-2]
motion will be granted as to Doc. Nos. 215-3, 215-5, 215-6,
220-2, 220-3, 220-4, 222, 222-2, 259-3, 259-6, 259-7 and
268-1. The motion will be denied as to the remaining
documents [Doc Nos. 222-1 and 268-2].
well-established there is “a common law public right of
access to judicial proceedings and records.” In re
Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001) (citation
omitted). When a party files a motion to seal it must
demonstrate that “good cause” exists for
protection of the material at issue. Securimetrics, Inc.
v. Iridian Techs., Inc., C.A. No. 03-4394 (RBK), 2006 WL
827889, at *2 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2006). Good cause exists when
a party makes “a particularized showing that disclosure
will cause a ‘clearly defined and serious injury to the
party seeking closure.'” Id. (citing Pansy v.
Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786 (3d
applicable requirements to seal documents are set forth in L.
Civ. R. 5.3(c), which requires that a motion to seal
describe: (a) the nature of the materials or proceedings at
issue; (b) the legitimate private or public interest which
warrants the relief sought; (c) the clearly defined and
serious injury that would result if the relief sought is not
granted; and (d) why a less restrictive alternative to the
relief sought is not available. L. Civ. R. 5.3(c)(3).
the motion is properly supported by the “Declaration of
Stephen A. Loney, Jr.” and an attached index. [Doc. No.
272-1]. The parties contend some of the information they seek
to seal constitutes “privileged attorney-client
communications.” See Mot. at 4. The parties
further aver that the information “reveals
competitively sensitive internal practices and methods for
evaluating and handling insurance claims.” Id.
Court has reviewed the subject materials in detail to decide
this motion and finds that the parties have failed to meet
their burden under L. Civ. R. 5.3 and the applicable case law
as to Doc. Nos. 222-1 and 268-2. This is so because there is
a less restrictive alternative available to the relief
sought. “A motion to seal is overbroad where the moving
party's interests ‘can be adequately served by
filing a more narrowly tailored' motion to seal.”
In re Benicar (Olmesarten) Prods. Liab. Litig., C.A.
No. 15-2606 (RBK/JS), 2016 WL 266353, at *70-71 (D.N.J. Jan.
21, 2016) (citing Bock v. Pressler & Pressler,
LLP, C.A. No. 11-7593 (KM/MCA), 2014 WL 1233039, at
*3(D.N.J. Mar. 25, 2014)). The Court finds there is a less
restrictive alternative available as to the documents in the
form of more narrowly tailored redactions. See In
re: Benicar, 2016 WL 266353, at *4. (“[W]here a less
restrictive alternative exists . . . a motion to seal will
fail.”). For example, the parties seek to seal the
entirety of Doc. Nos. 222-1 and 268-2. One of the documents
included is a safety manual given to Infinity Access
employees. The manual contains general information regarding
workplace safety that does not divulge any sensitive business
information. While the Court recognizes there could be a
legitimate private interest in keeping portions of the
documents sealed, redacting the entirety of the documents is
not necessary to protect the confidential information.
Accordingly, more narrowly tailored redactions are available.
Because there is a less restrictive alternative to the relief
sought, the motion will be denied as to Doc. Nos. 222-1 and
the remaining documents [Doc. Nos. Doc. Nos. 215-3, 215-5,
215-6, 220-2, 220-3, 220-4, 222, 222-2, 259-3, 259-6, 259-7
and 268-1], the Court agrees with the parties and finds if
the subject materials are made public, the parties could be
harmed by way of ...