The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JEFFREY B. BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. ) 2:22-cv-00365-GZS
)
PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE )
COMPANY OF AMERICA, )
)
Defendant )
ORDER ON MOTION TO SEAL
ERISA ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
Defendant asks the Court to seal the administrative record because the record, which
consists of more than 1,600 pages, is “replete with references to Plaintiff’s social security
number, date of birth, as well as years of medical and financial records.” (Motion to Seal
at 1, ECF No. 13.) Defendant maintains that the redaction of information as required by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 would be “an extremely burdensome task.” (Id. at 2.)
Plaintiff does not oppose the motion.
When a court considers a motion to seal, the court must be mindful that the law
recognizes a presumption “of public access to judicial proceedings and records.” United
States v. Kravetz, 706 F.3d 47, 52 (1st Cir. 2013). As the First Circuit has acknowledged,
however, “[t]hough the public’s right to access is vibrant, it is not unfettered. Important
countervailing interests can, in given instances, overwhelm the usual presumption and
defeat access.” Id. at 59 (quoting Siedle v. Putnam Inv., Inc., 147 F.3d 7, 10 (1st Cir.
1998)). In its assessment of a request to seal, the Court is required to “carefully balance
the presumptive public right of access against the competing interests that are at stake in a
particular case.” Id.
As reflected by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, which allows for the redaction
of certain personal information, the law recognizes a legitimate privacy interest in
protecting an individual’s personally identifiable information. The public interest,
however, in the record upon which a court is to rule, including the administrative record in
an ERISA case, is significant. Without access to the record, the public cannot assess the
bases for the Court’s decision. The privacy interests can be adequately addressed through
the redaction of the personally identifiable information. The burden of redaction does not
outweigh the public interest in access to the record. See Culver v. NXP Incorporated Long
Term Disability Insurance Plan, No. CV-18-02205-PHX-DWL, 2019 WL 1452992, at *1
(D. Ariz. Apr. 2, 2019) (“The annoyance and expense of taking the time to redact personal
information from documents ordinarily cannot outweigh the public’s right in access.”).
The balancing of the interests militates against the seal of the record. See White v.
Worthington Indus., Inc. Long Term Disability Income Plan, 266 F.R.D. 178, 196 (S.D.
Ohio 2010) (denying motion to seal ERISA record in part because when otherwise private
information serves as the basis for the legal claim, “[t]he plaintiff who seeks such redress
ordinarily understands that in order to do so, he or she may be waiving the right to keep his
or her medical history out of the public domain”). The Court nevertheless will grant in
part the motion to permit the parties to file an appropriately redacted version of the record.
The Court will seal the unredacted record upon filing. The parties may file an appropriately
redacted version of the record on or before March 14, 2023. If the parties do not file a
redacted version of the record by March 14, 2023, the unredacted version of the record will
be unsealed.
NOTICE
Any objections to this Order shall be filed in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 7th day of February, 2023.