The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
DAVID TOMS,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 8:21-cv-736-KKM-JSS
STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER
Defendant State Farm Life Insurance Company renews its motion to seal
documents filed in connection with Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. 60),
Defendant’s Opposition to Class Certification (Dkt. 83), and Defendant’s Motion to
Exclude the Testimony of Scott Witt (Dkt. 84). (Renewed Motion to Seal, Dkt. 96.)
Plaintiff opposes the Renewed Motion to Seal (Dkt. 99). The court held a hearing on
July 8, 2022. (Dkt. 113.) For the reasons set forth below, the Renewed Motion to Seal
is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his class action complaint on March 26, 2021, asserting claims
arising from the purchase of life insurance policies from Defendant. (Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 10,
49.) Defendant answered the complaint and asserted affirmative defenses on May 26,
2021. (Dkt. 21.)
On September 13, 2021, the court entered a Stipulated Protective Order, which
allows the parties to designate as “CONFIDENTIAL,” information including any
“trade secret, [] commercial [], or any other personal information of any Party or
Party’s customer, provided that the Party or third-party has made efforts to maintain
confidentiality that are reasonable under the circumstances . . . .” (Dkts. 44, 43-1 ¶
2.2.) The protective order allows a party to challenge a confidentiality designation “at
any time,” provided that delay does not impose an undue burden or disruption. (Id. ¶
6.1.) In October 2021, Defendant produced to Plaintiff a number of the documents at
issue in the Renewed Motion to Seal, and designated them as “CONFIDENTIAL”
pursuant to the protective order. (Dkt. 96 at 10–11.)
On January 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Class Certification and, with
the court’s leave, filed under seal certain attachments to that motion. (Dkt. 60.)
Specifically, Plaintiff filed ten documents in partially or fully redacted form removing
information that Plaintiff claimed Defendant had sought to seal in parallel litigation.
(Dkt. 61 at 1, 2–3.) Plaintiff noted that these documents were “the subject of detailed
testimony in open court at the trial in Vogt v. State Farm Life Insurance Company, 16-
4170-CV-NKL (W.D. Mo. [filed June 15, 2016]), and many of the at-issue documents
and information were publicly disclosed and admitted into evidence as trial exhibits in
that public proceeding.” (Id. at 2 n.1.) On February 11, 2022, Defendant moved to
seal these documents. (Dkt. 69.) Plaintiff opposed that motion. (Dkt. 70.)
On April 15, 2022, before the court ruled on Defendant’s initial motion to seal,
Defendant made four filings with the court. First, Defendant moved to seal, in whole
or in part, 15 documents filed in connection with Defendant’s forthcoming Opposition
to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and Defendant’s Motion to Exclude the
Testimony of Plaintiff’s Expert Scott Witt. (Dkt. 82.) Second, Defendant filed its
response in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification in redacted form.
(Dkt. 83.) Third, Defendant filed its Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff’s
Expert Scott Witt in redacted form. (Dkt. 84.) Finally, Defendant filed a Notice of
Filing Documents in Support, which included placeholders or redactions for those
documents that Defendant had sought leave to seal. (Dkt. 85.) Plaintiff opposed
Defendant’s second motion to seal, arguing in large part that the information had
already been publicly disclosed. (Dkt. 87.)
On April 27, 2022, the court held a hearing on Defendant’s initial motion to
seal. (Dkt. 89.) At the hearing, the court ordered Defendant to submit a renewed
motion to seal that consolidated both of its previously filed motions (Dkts. 69, 82).
(Dkt. 89.) The court also ordered Defendant to submit unredacted copies of the
documents proposed to be sealed for in camera review, which Defendant thereafter did.
On May 13, 2022, Defendant filed its Renewed Motion to Seal, seeking leave
to seal, in whole or in part, 21 documents. (Dkt. 96.)1 Specifically, Defendant seeks
leave to seal, in whole or in part,2 the following documents:
1 In light of Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Seal, the court terminated Defendant’s previously filed
motions to seal. (Dkt. 97.) Additionally, with the Renewed Motion to Seal, Defendant represented
that it had reached agreement with Plaintiff to unseal certain documents that were part of its original
sealing requests. (Dkt. 96-3.) As such, those documents are not part of this order.
2 Defendant seeks to completely seal six of these documents and redact portions of the remaining 15
documents. (Dkt. 96 at 18–19.)
Documents submitted with Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification
Declaration and Report of Plaintiffs Expert Scott Witt, | Originally filed at Dkt.
dated January 26, 2022 60-1; Defendant
submitted a proposed
redacted version at DKt.
76-3
Excerpts from the Transcript of the Deposition of State | Dkt. 60-6
Farm Employee Carl Streily on November 7, 2017
State Farm Life Insurance Company Actuarial Originally filed at Dkt.
Memorandum for Form 94030, Flexible Premium 60-8; Defendant
Adjustable Life Benefit, New Jersey (the New Jersey submitted a proposed
Actuarial Memorandum) revised redacted version
to the court with the
Renewed Motion to Seal
Universal Life Actuarial Memorandum for Form Originally filed at Dkt.
94030-40, South Carolina (the South Carolina 60-9; Defendant
Actuarial Memorandum) submitted a proposed
revised redacted version
to the court with the
Renewed Motion to Seal
Excerpts from the Transcript of the Deposition of State | Dkt. 60-10
Farm 30(b)(6) Designee Jeffrey Holzbauer on
November 30, 2017
State Farm Email re: Mortality Assumption Dkt. 60-11
Documentation dated October 4, 2001
State Farm Life Insurance Company Actuarial | Originally filed at Dkt.
Memorandum, Forms 94030-30, 64126-30, 94124-30, | 60-12; Defendant
Flexible Premium Adjustable Life Benefit submitted a proposed
revised redacted version
at Dkt. 76-2
Excerpts from the Transcript of the Deposition of State | Dkt. 60-13
Farm 30(b)(6) Designee Alan “Rusty” Hendren on
November 30, 2017
State Farm email re: VUL ItIlustration examples Dkt. 60-14
February 28, 2018 Declaration of State Farm Employee | Dkt. 60-15
Jeffrey Holzbauer
-4-
Documents submitted with Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Class Certification (Dkt. 83) and with Defendant’s Motion to Exclude the
Testimony of Scott Witt (Dkt. 84)
Defendant’s Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Scott | Dkt. 84
Witt with redaction
Excerpts from the Transcript of the March 29, 2022 Placeholder filed at Dkt.
Deposition of Plaintiff David Toms 85-1, Exhibit 1
(document not filed on
the public docket)
Excerpts from the Transcript of the Deposition of Scott | Dkt. 85-1, Exhibit 7
Witt on February 17, 2022 with redaction
Excerpts from the Transcript of the Deposition of Tony | Dkt. 85-1, Exhibit 8
Phipps on December 8, 2017 with redaction
Declaration and Report of Lauren J. Stiroh, PH.D., Dkt. 85-2
dated April 15, 2022 with redaction
Declaration and Expert Report of Craig Reynolds, DKkt. 85-5
FSA, MAAA, dated April 14, 2022
Reference Binder of Alan Hendren Placeholder filed at Dkt.
85-10, Exhibit A
(document not filed on
the public docket)
State Farm’s 1992 Expense Study Report Placeholder filed at Dkt.
85-10, Exhibit C
(document not filed on
the public docket)
Table of State Farm’s mortality experience date from _| Placeholder filed at Dkt.
1988-1991 85-10, Exhibit E
(document not filed on
the public docket)
State Farm’s 1994 Life Ratebook Placeholder filed at Dkt.
85-10, Exhibit M
(document not filed on
the public docket)
State Farm’s Cost Index Illustrations submitted to Placeholder filed at Dkt.
Florida Department of Insurance in 1993 85-10, Exhibit O
(document not filed on
the public docket)
-5-
With the Renewed Motion to Seal, Defendant submitted a declaration from
Defendant’s Actuarial Director Jeffrey Holzbauer summarizing the asserted
proprietary and confidential information contained within each document. (Dkt. 96-
1) (Holzbauer Decl.) Defendant also submitted a declaration by Defendant’s counsel
Jeremy Root, which provided information regarding the extent to which each
document had been previously publicly disclosed. (Dkt. 96-2) (Root Decl.) Plaintiff
filed an opposition to Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Seal on May 26, 2022. (Dkt.
99.) On June 22, 2022, Defendant filed a reply in further support of its Renewed
Motion to Seal. (Dkt. 109.) The court held a hearing on July 8, 2022 (Dkt. 113).
APPLICABLE STANDARDS
Middle District of Florida Local Rule 1.11 governs the filing of documents
under seal in a civil case. Under Local Rule 1.11(c), a party seeking to file any paper
or other matter under seal if not authorized by a statute, rule, or order: (1) must include
in the title “Motion for Leave to File Under Seal”; (2) must describe the item proposed
for sealing; (3) must state the reason: (A) filing the item is necessary, (B) sealing the
item is necessary, and (C) partial sealing, redaction, or means other than sealing are
unavailable or unsatisfactory; (4) must propose a duration of the seal; (5) must state
the name, mailing address, email address, and telephone number of the person
authorized to retrieve a sealed, tangible item; (6) must include a legal memorandum
supporting the seal; but (7) must not include the item proposed for sealing. No order
sealing any item shall extend beyond 90 days after a case is closed and all appeals
exhausted. M.D. Fla. Local R. 1.11(f).
In addition to Local Rule 1.11, the Eleventh Circuit recognizes that there is a
“presumptive common law right to inspect and copy judicial records.” United States v.
Rosenthal, 763 F.2d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,
435 U.S. 589, 597–99 (1978)); Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d
1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001). Where material is “filed in connection with any
substantive pretrial motion, unrelated to discovery, [it] is subject to the common law
right of access,” which includes the right to inspect and copy public records and
documents. Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007). Indeed,
while district courts “have discretion to determine which portions of the record should
be placed under seal, [such] discretion is guided by the presumption of public access
to judicial documents.” Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 717 F.3d 1224, 1235 (11th
Cir. 2013).
The public’s right of access however, “is not absolute” and the presumption of
access “may be overcome by a showing of good cause,” taking into consideration the
public’s interest in accessing court documents and the party’s interest in keeping the
information confidential. Romero, 480 F.3d at 1245–46 (citing Chicago Tribune Co., 263
F.3d at 1309). “[W]hether good cause exists . . . is . . . decided by the nature and
character of the information in question.” Id. at 1246 (quoting Chicago Tribune Co., 263
F.3d at 1315). In balancing the competing interests of the public’s right of access and
the party’s interest in maintaining confidentiality,
courts consider, among other factors, whether allowing access would
impair court functions or harm legitimate privacy interests, the degree of
and likelihood of injury if made public, the reliability of the information,
whether there will be an opportunity to respond to the information,
whether the information concerns public officials or public concerns, and
the availability of a less onerous alternative to sealing the documents.
Id. (citing In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litig., 820 F.2d 352, 356 (11th Cir.1987)). A party
can establish good cause by showing that disclosure will cause “a clearly defined and
serious injury.” Nguyen v. Raymond James & Assocs., Inc., No. 8:20-cv-195-CEH-AAS,
2022 WL 61198, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 6, 2022) (quoting Digital Assurance Certification,
LLC v. Pendolino, No 6:17-cv-72-CEM-TBS, 2017 WL 320830, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan.
23, 2017)). In particular, “[a] party’s privacy or proprietary interest in information
sometimes overcomes the interest of the public in accessing the information.” Romero,
480 F.3d at 1246 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598).
ANALYSIS
Having reviewed the parties’ briefing on this matter and supporting
documentation (both as part of the Renewed Motion to Seal and the prior motions to
seal), having heard oral argument from counsel at two hearings, and having reviewed
the documents that Defendant seeks to seal in camera, the court finds that based on the
nature and character of the information in question, Defendant has demonstrated good
cause to file some of the documents under seal.
I. Requirements of Local Rule 1.11
Initially, the court notes that Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Seal satisfies the
requirements imposed by Local Rule 1.11(c). The Renewed Motion to Seal is
designated as such pursuant to Local Rule 1.11(c)(1), contains a legal memorandum
supporting the request to seal as required by Local Rule 1.11(c)(6), and does not
include the items proposed for sealing as required by Local Rule 1.11(c)(7). It, along
with the Holzbauer and Root Declarations attached as exhibits, describe the items to
be sealed as required by Local Rule 1.11(c)(2), and explain why the filing and sealing
of the items is necessary and why partial sealing, redaction, or other means is
unavailable for some of the documents as required by Local Rule 1.11(c)(3). Finally,
the Renewed Motion to Seal proposes that the information remain under seal for at
least 90 days after the case is closed and all appeals are exhausted as required by Local
Rule 1.11(c)(4), and provides the name, mailing address, email address, and telephone
number of counsel authorized to retrieve sealed information as required by Local Rule
1.11(c)(5).
II. Presumptive Common Law Right of Access
Defendant seeks to seal documents that have been filed or are proposed to be
filed in connection with Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. 60),
Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. 83), and
Defendant’s Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff’s Expert Scott Witt. (Dkt.
84.) As these documents are proposed to be filed with the court in connection with
“substantive pretrial motion[s] unrelated to the discovery,” they are subject to the
presumptive common law right of access. Romero, 480 F.3d at 1245 (citing Chicago
Tribune Co., 263 F.3d at 1311); see, e.g., Grant v. Regal Auto. Grp., Inc., No. 8:19-cv-363-
SDM-JSS, 2022 WL 1081566, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2022) (considering documents
submitted in connection with motion to certify class under presumption of public
access); Nguyen, 2022 WL 61198, at *4 (requiring good cause to overcome
presumption of public access for documents submitted with motion for class
certification, opposition to motion for class certification, and related Daubert motions).
Defendant may therefore overcome the presumption of public access only “by a
showing of good cause, which requires ‘balanc[ing] the asserted right of access against
[Defendant’s] interest in keeping the information confidential.’” Romero, 480 F.3d. at
1246 (quoting Chicago Tribune Co., 263 F.3d at 1309).3
III. Good Cause Overcoming the Right of Access
Within the 21 documents at issue, Defendant seeks to seal what it claims to be
its confidential business information and trade secrets, as well as the personal
information of its policyholders. (Dkt. 96 at 1.) On review, the court finds that
Defendant has demonstrated good cause to seal some of the requested documents.
3 Defendant argues that Plaintiff has waived any ability to challenge its having designated the
documents as “CONFIDENTIAL” pursuant to the protective order, by failing to challenge that
designation in a timely manner after the documents were produced in October 2021. (Dkt. 96 at 10–
12.) However, the court notes that the protective order in this case allows the parties to challenge
confidentiality designations “at any time” and Plaintiff’s challenging of the designation here has not
imposed an undue burden on Defendant. (Dkt. 43-1 ¶ 6.1.) In any event, the parties’ designation of
information as confidential pursuant to the protective order is not relevant to whether Defendant has
made the requisite showing to seal the documents. See Reed v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., No. 8:17-cv-
199-T-27CPT, 2018 WL 5077179, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 17, 2018) (“The parties’ mutual agreement
to keep documents confidential or to seal materials is ‘immaterial’ to a court’s decision regarding the
public’s right of access.”) (quoting Brown v. Advantage Eng’g, 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992);
Entrust Datacard Corp. v. Zeiser GmbH, No. 3:17-cv-110-J-39MCR, 2019 WL 12522657, at *2 (M.D.
Fla. Feb. 15, 2019) (“Although ‘a stipulated protective order may provide that documents designated
confidential are presumptively protected, a party’s calling a document confidential pursuant to a
protective order ‘does not make it so’ when it comes to filing the document with the court.’”) (quoting
Joao Bock Transaction Sys., LLC v. Fid. Nat. Info. Servs., Inc., No. 3:13-cv-223-J-32JRK, 2014 WL 279656,
at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2014)).
Initially, in weighing the Eleventh Circuit’s factors, the court finds that allowing
access to the documents would not impair the judicial function, but would harm the
legitimate privacy interests of Defendant, as discussed below. There is no suggestion
that Plaintiff will not be afforded an opportunity to respond to the information should
it be placed under seal, and indeed the parties appear to have engaged in similar
litigation with the same or similar information under seal. See (Root Decl., ¶¶ 20–31.)
There is further no challenge to the reliability of the information, nor is there an
assertion that the information concerns public officials or public concerns. See, e.g.,
United States v. Lee Mem’l Health Sys., No. 2:14-cv-437-FTM-38CM, 2018 WL 5014534,
at *11 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 16, 2018) (denying motion to seal in part where requested
information “involves matters of particular concern to the public, such as allegations
of fraud against the government”).4
A. Defendant has sufficiently demonstrated that a clearly defined and
serious injury would result from disclosure of its confidential
business information and trade secrets.
The parties’ disagreement largely centers on whether Defendant has
demonstrated a “clearly defined and serious injury” that would result from disclosure
of the documents. Among the Eleventh Circuit’s factors, the parties dispute whether
the disclosure will harm the legitimate privacy interests of Defendant and the degree
of and likelihood of any such injury. Plaintiff argues that Defendant cannot establish
4 However, the court notes that as is the case here, “in class actions – where by definition ‘some
members of the public are also parties to the [case]’ – the standards for denying public access to the
record ‘should be applied . . . with particular strictness.’” Reed, 2018 WL 5077179, at *1 (quoting
Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016)).
any injury from disclosure of the documents because they have already been publicly
disclosed in separate proceedings, specifically at the trial in Vogt v. State Farm Life Ins.
Co., 16-cv-4170-NKL (W.D. Mo. filed June 15, 2016) (the Vogt Matter). Upon review
of the parties’ arguments and submissions, the court finds that, with the exception of
the documents noted below, Defendant has sufficiently demonstrated a clearly defined
and serious injury that would result from disclosure of the documents.
Defendant argues that good cause exists to seal the documents in whole or in
part because the documents reflect its protectable trade secrets and proprietary
information. (Dkt. 96 at 5–9.) In particular, Defendant claims that the documents
reflect inputs into its pricing process and the method by which those inputs are used to
generate pricing. (Id.) Defendant avers that although the particular universal life
policy at issue here is no longer sold, the “pricing assumptions and related information
[contained within the documents] remain confidential and competitively valuable,”
because “competitors in the insurance market [may] seek to entice [Defendant’s]
customers into surrendering their policy for a different product that the competitor
may offer.” (Holzbauer Decl., ¶ 5.) Defendant argues that because of the competitive
nature of the market for life insurance, it closely maintains the confidentiality of the
information it seeks to seal, including its “confidential, actuarial information about its
experience with insureds, including its mortality experience, persistency experience,
expense experience, profit goals, mix of business, and other sensitive information that
is relevant to [Defendant’s] pricing of life insurance products.” (Dkt. 96 at 6.)
Defendant further argues that although its “general pricing process” has been
consistently disclosed, its “detailed process,” which reflects the “actual methodology
and process by which these inputs are used to develop the actual prices charged to
policyholders is proprietary and competitively sensitive.” (Id. at 8–9.)
Defendant identifies several categories of confidential, competitively valuable
information that are contained within the documents. For example, Defendant states
that its mortality experience data was developed through “analysis of multiple years
of mortality experience across a vast population of insureds,” and would allow a
competitor “to re-price or even develop their own product specifically to compete with
[Defendant’s] universal life products.” (Holzbauer Decl., ¶ 14.) Defendant’s
persistency data reflects data generated by “carefully analyzing its population of
insureds,” and is “competitively valuable because analysis of this data is required to
price and reprice life insurance policies.” (Holzbauer Decl., ¶ 9.) If a competitor
gained access to Defendant’s “persistency data,” the competitor “would be privy to
highly proprietary information that would enable the competitor to target [its]
customer base.” (Dkt. 96 at 7 (citing Holzbauer Decl., ¶ 10).) Defendant’s “expense
data” similarly reflects “the careful and specific analysis [that Defendant’s] actuaries
perform every year,” and disclosure “would be potentially harmful to [Defendant’s]
competitive position” because “competitors could . . . try and replicate [Defendant’s]
policies and rates and target [Defendant’s] customers.” (Holzbauer Decl., ¶ 12.)
Defendant further represents that its “commission scale” is “relied upon and taken into
consideration by [Defendant’s] actuaries when developing pricing and re-pricing
recommendations” and if disclosed, could allow competitors “to undercut
[Defendant’s] competitive advantage by seeking to entice successful agents away from
[Defendant] with the promise of higher commissions. . . .” (Holzbauer Decl., ¶ 13.)
Defendant further argues that if a competitor gained access to its “current or historic
actual cost of insurance rates, the competitor would be able to develop a competing
product at a purportedly lower cost.” (Dkt. 96 at 7 (citing Holzbauer Decl., ¶ 7).)
The court finds that these representations are sufficient to show a “clearly
defined and serious injury” should this information be disclosed, such that Defendant
has demonstrated good cause to overcome the presumption of public access to some
of the documents. For these proposed sealed documents, Defendant has provided
descriptions of the proposed redacted content that relate to one or more of the above
categories of competitively sensitive information, including the specific data inputs
themselves or the method or means by which Defendant uses that data. (Holzbauer
Decl., 20.) These representations are sufficient to demonstrate that Defendant would
suffer harm to its business and its position related to competitors in the insurance
market, should the information be filed publicly. See, e.g., Nolen v. Wyndham Vacation
Resorts, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-330-PGB-EJK, 2021 WL 3036460, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 15,
2021) (“Courts in this District have recognized that maintaining the privacy of
confidential business information can constitute good cause for keeping documents
from the public view.”); Barkley v. Pizza Hut of Am., Inc., No. 6:14-cv-376-ORL37DAB,
2015 WL 5915817, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 8, 2015) (finding sufficient showing to justify
sealing of deposition transcript that contained “confidential information regarding
Defendant’s business operations as well as confidential and competitively sensitive
information” and expert report containing “data and analysis . . . which Defendant’s
competitors could use . . . to undercut” its position).
B. Any disclosure of information in the Vogt Matter does not preclude
Defendant’s ability to demonstrate harm from disclosure.
Plaintiff argues that Defendant has waived its ability to assert confidentiality
over proprietary business information contained within the documents because
“[p]ublication of those materials in open court operated as a waiver of any rights
[Defendant] has to restrict [their] future use.” (Dkt. 99 at 4) (internal marks and
citations omitted). Specifically, Plaintiff identifies two categories of documents that
Defendant seeks to seal but that have been previously publicly disclosed. First,
Plaintiff argues that several of the documents, including deposition transcripts and
portions of declarations, contain information that was presented in open court at the
trial in the Vogt Matter, and is presently publicly available by review of the Vogt trial
transcript. See, generally (Dkt. 99 at 7–11.) Second, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has
waived confidentiality over any documents that were actually admitted into evidence
at the trial in the Vogt Matter, which although not presently available, were the subject
of detailed testimony in the Vogt Matter. Id.5
Defendant does not dispute that the following documents were admitted as
exhibits in the Vogt Matter:
5 Plaintiff’s counsel also argued that a there was a third category of documents that have not been
publicly disclosed, but for which Defendant had failed to make a satisfactory showing as to a clearly
defined and serious injury. However, as discussed above, the court finds that Defendant has made the
requisite showing of injury to warrant sealing as to those documents.
Excerpts from the Transcript of the Deposition of State Dkt. 60-6
Farm Employee Carl Streily on November 7, 2017
State Farm Life Insurance Company Actuarial Originally filed at Dkt.
Memorandum for Form 94030, Flexible Premium 60-8; Defendant
Adjustable Life Benefit, New Jersey (the New Jersey submitted a proposed
Actuarial Memorandum) revised redacted version
to the court with the
Renewed Motion to Seal
Universal Life Actuarial Memorandum for Form Originally filed at Dkt.
94030-40, South Carolina (the South Carolina 60-9; Defendant
Actuarial Memorandum) submitted a proposed
revised redacted version
to the court with the
Renewed Motion to Seal
Excerpts from the Transcript of the Deposition of State Dkt. 60-10
Farm 30(b)(6) Designee Jeffrey Holzbauer on
November 30, 2017
State Farm Life Insurance Company Actuarial Originally filed at Dkt.
Memorandum, Forms 94030-30, 64126-30, 94124-30, 60-12; Defendant
Flexible Premium Adjustable Life Benefit submitted a proposed
revised redacted version
at Dkt. 76-2
However, Defendant argues that “[a]ll of the State Farm information that is the
subject of [the Renewed Motion to Seal] is nonpublic and is either (1) competitively
sensitive confidential information, proprietary to State Farm; or (2) private
information belonging to State Farm policyholders.” (Root Decl., ¶ 5.) Defendant
argues that the facts and circumstances of the disclosure at trial in the Vogt Matter,
including any discussion of the materials in open court, do not warrant a denial of its
request to seal here. (Dkt. 96 at 12–18.) Defendant argues that it undertook measures,
both at the trial in the Vogt Matter, in its appeal, and in several post-Vogt cases to keep
these documents confidential. (Root Decl., at 2–10.) Specifically, Attorney Root avers
that having acted as trial counsel for Defendant in the Vogt Matter:
I monitored the audience at the trial in this case, which was conducted
in Jefferson City, Missouri. To the best of my knowledge and
recollection, no members of the press or any person not associated with
the Court, the jury, or the parties or the counsel attended the trial. In
particular, no insurance competitors or media representatives were
present in the courtroom. The trial was not live streamed.
(Root Decl., ¶ 10.)6 Defendant further avers that it “carefully reviewed the [Vogt trial]
transcript and moved to redact any reference to State Farm’s trade secret information,
including the only reference in the transcript to State Farm’s trade secret formulae and
actuarial analysis.” (Root Decl., ¶ 11.) Defendant also argues that pursuant to the
local rules in the Western District of Missouri, all exhibits were withdrawn from the
court within 14 days after the conclusion of proceedings and are thus no longer
publicly available. (Dkt. 96 at 15; Root Decl., ¶ 13.) Defendant further states that the
portions of those exhibits that it seeks to seal here are not part of the currently available
Vogt trial transcript. (Root Decl., ¶¶ 32.b., 32.c., 32.d., 32.e., and 32.g.)
Based on the “nature and character of the information in question,” Romero,
480 F.3d at 1246, the court finds that the disclosure of certain information at the Vogt
trial, including admitting certain documents as exhibits and testimony about those
exhibits and other information, does not preclude Defendant’s ability to establish a
6 In a separate declaration, Attorney Root provided additional detail that the only persons present at
the trial were: “1) the court and court personnel; 2) the jury; 3) the parties and their employees; 4)
counsel and their agents; 5) experts bound by a protective order; and 6) one lawyer’s parents.” (Dkt.
82-2 at 4.)
clearly defined and serious injury were those documents to be filed on the public
docket today.
The court recognizes that in certain circumstances, the publication of
information at trial may preclude a party from seeking protection from disclosure post-
trial. Hepp v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., No. 8:13-cv-2836-T-17TBM, 2015 WL 4072101,
at *4 (M.D. Fla. July 2, 2015) (finding no good cause to seal exhibits that had been
introduced in open court where exhibits had been “disseminated to lawyers and
litigants across the country” and post-trial request to seal the exhibits remained
pending); Kleiman v. Wright, No. 18-cv-80176, 2022 WL 59676, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Jan.
6, 2022) (finding no good cause to seal exhibits that “were either discussed at length
or introduced in open court during the widely publicized trial in this matter”).
However, the cases finding a waiver of confidentiality based on a prior, public
disclosure are distinguishable. The trial does not appear to have been widely
publicized, and the exhibits that were admitted or displayed at trial are no longer
publicly available. Defendant avers that it took steps both post-trial, and on appeal, to
maintain the confidentiality of the documents, including reviewing and redacting the
publicly available trial transcript for information that it deemed to be confidential and
proprietary. (Dkt. 96 at 15.)
Courts routinely grant post-trial requests to seal exhibits and testimony to
prevent broad dissemination after the information has been presented in open court.
See, e.g., NXP B.V. v. BlackBerry Ltd., No 6:12-cv-498-Orl-22TBS, 2014 WL 4059135,
at *4 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 15, 2014) (granting request to seal portions of the trial transcript
and certain admitted trial exhibits on the grounds that they contain confidential and
proprietary information where the parties “assert that disclosure of the information
they seek to protect, beyond what has already occurred in open court during trial,
would be harmful to them and the interests of non-parties”); Deltona Transformer Corp.
v. Noco Co., No. 6:19-cv-308-CEM-LRH, 2021 WL 4443999, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 21,
2021) (finding good cause to grant post-trial sealing of admitted exhibits “in
anticipation of the Court making the trial exhibits in this case publicly available on the
docket”) (collecting cases). Notably, the district court in the Vogt Matter granted a
post-trial motion to file the New Jersey Actuarial Memorandum (Dkt. 60-8) under seal
even after it was admitted into evidence and referred to in trial testimony. (Dkt. 96-2,
Exhibit B.) Thus, the court most familiar with the proceedings at the trial in the Vogt
Matter did not consider that the memorandum’s introduction into evidence and the
subsequent testimony included in the trial transcript waived the right of any party to
seek to file it under seal on the public docket thereafter.7
Further, over the last several years, the parties have repeatedly sought and
received protection from disclosure for the same or similar documents in various other
matters, irrespective of any disclosure at trial in the Vogt Matter. (Root Decl., ¶ 9.)
See, e.g., Bally v. State Farm Life Ins. Co., No. 3:18-cv-04954 (N.D. Cal.), ECF Nos. 65,
7 The court further notes that although Plaintiff argues that the Streily and Holzbauer video deposition
excerpts were played for the jury in the Vogt trial, (Dkt. 70 at 8), the Vogt trial transcript, reflects only
notations indicating the deposition was played, and not the content of those depositions. See (Dkt.
60-25 at 247 (notations indicating “Video deposition testimony of Carl Streily, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No.
246, was played for the jury.” and “Video deposition testimony of Jeffrey Holzbauer, Plaintiffs’
Exhibit No. 247, was played for the jury.”).)
69, 96, 238-01, 256, 272, 273; Whitman v. State Farm Life Ins. Co., No. 3:19-cv-06025
(W.D. Wash), ECF Nos. 123, 124; Page v. State Farm Life Ins. Co., No. 5:20-cv-00617
(W.D. Tex.), ECF No. 107; McClure v. State Farm Life Ins. Co., No. 2:20-cv-01389 (D.
Ariz.), ECF Nos. 84, 86; Jaunich v. State Farm Life Ins. Co., No. 0:20-cv-01567 (D.
Minn.), ECF No. 155; Singh v. State Farm Life Ins. Co., No. 3:21-cv-00190 (D. Or.),
ECF No. 46. While Plaintiff argues that prior courts have merely “rubber stamped”
sealing requests in similar litigation (Dkt. 70 at 12), the court is unpersuaded. Whitley
Steel Co. v. Nat’l Bank of Com., No. 3:19-cv-81-J-34JBT, 2019 WL 11504417, at *1
(M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2019) (a reviewing court “is duty bound ‘to review any request to
seal the record (or part of it) [and] may not rubber stamp a stipulation to seal the
record’”) (citation omitted).
Thus, the court finds that Defendant has demonstrated good cause to seal some
of the documents here, irrespective of any disclosure at trial in the Vogt Matter, because
of the serious harm to Defendant’s business and competitive position that would result
if this information were public. See, e.g., Barkley, 2015 WL 5915817, at *3; Deltona
Transformer Corp., 2021 WL 4443999, at *1 (sealing trial exhibits reflecting plaintiff’s
“internal business operations, financials, customer information, competitive strategy,
business decisions of the parties, and internal decision making-process”).
C. Defendant established good cause to seal personal identifying
information of its policyholders.
Defendant also argues that certain portions of the documents should be sealed
because they contain the personal identifying information of Defendant’s
policyholders, including of Plaintiff. (Dkt. 96 at 9–10.) These include the following
three documents submitted with Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Class Certification and Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Scott Witt:
Excerpts from the Transcript of the March 29, 2022 Placeholder filed at Dkt.
Deposition of Plaintiff David Toms 85-1, Exhibit 1
(document not filed on
the public docket)
Declaration and Report of Lauren J. Stiroh, PH.D., Dkt. 85-2
dated April 15, 2022 with redaction
Declaration and Expert Report of Craig Reynolds, Dkt. 85-5
FSA, MAAA, dated April 14, 2022
The court finds that Defendant has demonstrated good cause to seal this information
as well.
Defendant seeks to seal portions of the transcript of the March 29, 2022
deposition of Plaintiff Toms (Dkt. 85-1, Exhibit 1), which Plaintiff previously
designated as confidential. (Root Decl., ¶ 32.n.) Defendant relies on Plaintiff’s
description of the information as being Plaintiff’s and his family’s confidential health
information and their home address. (Dkt. 86 at 4.) Plaintiff agrees that this
information should be sealed. (Id.) Having reviewed this information in camera, the
court finds good cause to seal the personal identifying and confidential health
information contained within the March 29, 2022 Deposition of Plaintiff Toms. See
(Dkt. 59 (granting request to seal similar information).)
Defendant also seeks to seal insurance policy numbers contained within two
exhibits: the Declaration and Report of Lauren J. Stiroh, PH.D. (Dkt. 85-2); and the
Declaration and Report of Craig Reynolds, FSA, MAAA. (Dkt. 85-5.) Plaintiff argues
that Defendant should not be allowed to redact “bare policy numbers” from either of
these exhibits. (Dkt. 99 at 11–12.) However, upon reviewing the portions sought to
be redacted in camera, the court finds that redaction of the policy numbers is
appropriate, as those numbers are referenced along with the ages, gender, personal
habits, or financial information of the policyholders. See, e.g., (Dkt 85-2 at 23.)
Defendant argues that these numbers should be filed under seal “to ensure that these
policyholders (and the insureds) cannot be connected to the private information that
is also disclosed.” (Dkt. 109 at 5.) The court agrees and grants Defendant’s request
to seal those portions of the Stiroh and Reynolds Declarations that contain insurance
policy numbers. See Shamblin v. Obama for Am., No. 8:13-cv-2428-T-33TBM, 2014 WL
6611006, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2014) (noting that “the personal identifying
information of third parties deserves protection”).
IV. Lack of Good Cause to Seal Duplicative, Non-Confidential
Information
Having reviewed the parties’ submissions in detail, including the unredacted
exhibits submitted by Defendant for in camera review, the court finds that Defendant
has failed to establish good cause for the proposed redaction or total sealing of three
documents.
Defendant seeks to seal portions of the deposition transcript for the November
7, 2017 deposition of Defendant’s employee Carl Streily. (Dkt. 60-6.) Plaintiff argues
that portions of this document that Defendant seeks to seal reflect only the contents of
the New Jersey Actuarial Memorandum (Dkt. 60-8) that Defendant does not seek to
seal from the memorandum itself. (Dkt. 99 at 7.)
Upon review, Plaintiff’s point is well-taken. To the extent that Defendant seeks
to redact from the Streily Deposition Transcript, questions or answers that simply
identify or recount content from the New Jersey Actuarial Memorandum that
Defendant does not seek to redact from memorandum itself, Defendant is directed to
revise its proposed redactions such that those portions will not be redacted. See, e.g.,
(Dkt. 60-6 at 141:23–143:8.) To the extent that the transcript reflects Mr. Streily’s
analysis of or impressions of any such information, including the questions sought to
elicit that testimony, the court finds that Defendant has made the requisite showing of
good cause for those portions to be filed under seal.
The court finds that Defendant’s proposed redactions of Mr. Holzbauer’s
November 30, 2017 deposition transcript (Dkt. 60-10) are also overbroad. As above,
to the extent that Defendant seeks to redact from this document, questions or answers
that simply identify or recount information that Defendant does not seek to redact
from the New Jersey Actuarial Memorandum itself, Defendant is directed to revise its
proposed redactions to reveal those portions. See, e.g., (Dkt. 60-10 at 73:15–74:3.) To
the extent that the transcript reflects Mr. Holzbauer’s analysis of or impressions of any
such information, including the questions sought to elicit that testimony, the court
finds that Defendant has made the requisite showing of good cause for those portions
to be filed under seal.
Finally, Defendant seeks to seal, in full, a State Farm email regarding VUL
Illustration examples, which Defendant describes as a “December 7, 2014 internal
State Farm email wherein State Farm discusses in detail the specific process it uses to
input various expense and mortality assumptions into the pricing process and the
potential alternatives to that process State Farm was assessing at the time.” (Dkt. 60-
14; Holzbauer Decl., ¶ 20.h.) Defendant states that this email has never been made
public. (Root Decl., ¶ 32.i.)
Having reviewed the email in camera, the court does not find good cause to seal
this email in full, as Defendant has failed to establish that a less onerous alternative to
sealing in full is not available. In particular, the court sees no reason why the redaction
of this email should not mirror the redaction of the other internal email at issue here.
See (Dkt. 60-11.) Specifically, while the content of the emails in this chain may reflect
Defendant’s confidential information that is worthy of protection, the court finds that
the email fields reflecting the senders, recipients, subject lines, and dates of the emails
on this chain do not. This is especially true given that Defendant itself has revealed at
least part of this information in support of its Renewed Motion to Seal. See (Holzbauer
Decl., ¶ 20.h. (revealing date and subject line of email).) Thus, Defendant is directed
to submit a revised redacted version of this email chain that redacts the content of the
emails, but does not redact the email fields reflecting the senders, recipients, subject
lines, and dates of the emails on this chain.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Seal (Dkt. 96) is GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part.
2. The Renewed Motion to Seal is denied as to Defendant’s request to seal
the following documents:
a. Excerpts from the Transcript of the Deposition of State Farm
Employee Carl Streily on November 7, 2017 (Dkt. 60-6);
b. Excerpts from the Transcript of the Deposition of State Farm
30(b)(6) Designee Jeffrey Holzbauer on November 30, 2017 (Dkt.
60-10); and
c. State Farm email re: VUL Illustration examples (Dkt. 60-14).
Defendant is directed to submit revised redacted versions of these
documents to Plaintiff in accordance with this order for filing in support
of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. 60). The Clerk is
directed to accept under seal the unredacted versions of these documents.
3. The Renewed Motion to Seal is granted with respect to all other
documents. The parties are directed to publicly file redacted versions of
the remaining documents in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class
Certification (Dkt. 60), and Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion
for Class Certification (Dkt. 83) and Motion to Exclude the Testimony
of Scott Witt (Dkt. 84), as consistent with the most recent redacted
versions submitted to the court for in camera review as part of its
resolution of the Renewed Motion to Seal. The Clerk is further directed
to accept under seal the unredacted versions of these documents.
4. The documents shall remain under seal for 90 days after the case is closed
and all appeals are exhausted. M.D. Fla. Local Rule 1.11(f).
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on July 26, 2022.
JUEIE $. SNEED
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
- 26 -