Summary
This document is a stipulated motion filed by defendants in an ERISA dispute seeking leave to file their opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment under seal. Defendants argue that sealing is necessary to protect the plaintiff’s confidential medical records contained in the administrative record, proposing instead to file a redacted version on the public docket. The accompanying proposed order grants the motion, authorizing the sealed filing while maintaining compliance with public access rules.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court may allow filing of a sealed opposition and a redacted public version to protect the plaintiff's medical privacy.
Holdings
- The court granted the defendants' stipulated motion, permitting the opposition to be filed under seal in its entirety and in a redacted form on the public docket.
Key quotations
“Although there is a general presumption of public access to court records, courts in this District have recognized that the need to protect medical privacy constitutes a “compelling reason” sufficient to justify sealing records. See, e.g., Karpenski v. Am. Gen. Life Cos., LLC, No. 2:12-CV-01569-RSM, 2013 WL 5588312, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 9, 2013).” (*1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 9, 2013))
“Defendants’ Stipulated Motion (Dkt. No. 54) for Leave to file Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 55) under Seal is GRANTED.” (1146–47 (W.D. Wash. 2023))
Factual background
Plaintiff David Sarruf filed an ERISA disability claim. The administrative record contains his confidential medical information. Defendants seek to file their opposition to the plaintiff's summary‑judgment motion under seal, with a redacted version on the public docket, to protect that privacy.
Procedural history
The action arises under ERISA. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Defendants filed a stipulated motion to file their opposition under seal, citing medical‑privacy concerns. The court considered the motion and granted it.