The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MILIND DESAI, ) Case No. 1:19-cv-2327
)
Plaintiff, ) Judge J. Philip Calabrese
)
v. ) Magistrate Judge
) William H. Baughman Jr.
GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, )
)
Defendant. )
)
ORDER
On September 1, 2021, the Court provisionally granted Defendant’s motion to
seal and directed the parties to review Plaintiff’s motion for class certification and
determine what information they believe warrants redaction or sealing. (ECF No. 95,
PageID #1651–52.) The parties jointly submitted two tables with previously proposed
redactions, which they believe (1) qualify for sealing or redaction if Defendant
provides legal support (ECF No. 101, Table 1), and (2) do not need redaction or sealing
(id., Table 2). Defendant also filed a supplement to its motion for leave to file under
seal in which it requests more extensive redaction or sealing to which Plaintiff does
not agree. (ECF No. 100, Table.) In this Order, the Court determines what materials
in Plaintiff’s motion for class certification and supporting documents warrants
redaction or sealing.
LEGAL STANDARD
A district court’s decision to seal court records is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. Klingenberg v. Federal Home Loan Mortg. Co., 658 F. App’x 202, 207 (6th
Cir. 2016) (citing Shane Grp. Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 825 F.3d 299, 306 (6th
Cir. 2016)). But in the sealing context, “the district court’s decision is not accorded
the deference that standard normally brings.” Id. To properly exercise its discretion,
district courts must “set forth specific findings and conclusions ‘which justify
nondisclosure to the public.’” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 306 (quoting Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1176 (6th Cir. 1983)).
This independent obligation exists regardless of any agreement or
disagreement among the parties about sealing the records at issue. See Rudd Equip.
Co v. John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co., 834 F.3d 589, 595 (6th Cir. 2016). District
courts must weigh, on the one hand, the parties’ interest in keep information
confidential, and on the other, the public’s strong interest in “obtaining the
information contained in the court record.” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305 (citation and
quotation omitted). “The courts have long recognized . . . ‘a strong presumption in
favor of openness’ to court records.” Id. (quoting Brown & Williamson, 701 F.2d at
1179).
Overcoming this burden is “a heavy one: ‘Only the most compelling reasons
can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.’” Id. (quoting In re Knoxville News-
Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983)). The greater the public interest, the
greater the burden to justify seal. See id. In civil litigation, the most common
categories of information that overcome this burden include “trade secrets,
information covered by a recognized privilege (such as attorney-client privilege), and
information required by statute to remain in confidence (such as the name of a minor
victim of a sexual assault).” Id. at 308.
To demonstrate that sealing is necessary, the party seeking confidentiality
must “analyze, in detail, document by document, the propriety of secrecy, providing
reasons and legal citations” that support seal. Id. at 305–06 (citation and quotation
omitted). Therefore, it is incumbent on the Court to review each document and the
legal rationales that the parties offer, and “set forth specific findings and conclusions
‘which justify nondisclosure to the public.’” Id. at 306 (quoting Brown & Williamson,
710 F.2d at 1176).
ANALYSIS
With these principles in mind, the Court turns to the documents at issue in
this case. In both the joint submission and its supplement, Defendant requests that
the Court: (1) redact excerpts from the depositions of David Antonacci, Alan Koontz,
and Jacob Linder (Exhibits A, B; and E); (2) redact excerpts from the expert reports
of Stockton and Tomlin (Exhibit C); (3) seal an entire Geico internal email thread
(Exhibit D); and (4) redact portions of Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. (ECF
No. 101, PageID #2259.) Defendant supports these requests with a declaration from
Todd Koontz about Geico’s confidentiality practices and the importance of sealing
these documents from the public. (ECF No. 92-1.) The Court addresses each request
in turn.
I. Deposition Testimony
Defendant asserts that its designations in the depositions of Antonacci,
Koontz, and Linder contain information about “the nature and capabilities of
[Defendant’s] proprietary electronic system to store and make claimant data
available,” Defendant’s “claim-processing practices and procedures for the settlement
of total-loss claims, strategic decisions related to those practices, and how
[Defendant’s] interpretation of policy language and internal documents impacts those
practices and procedures.” (ECF No. 100, PageID #2, 5.)
Koontz’s declaration supporting sealing states that publicly disclosing this
information would compromise Defendant’s competitive standing. He declares that
“if a competitor obtained information about GEICO’s claims handling processes or
training and reference materials—including what information is gathered and
maintained—the competitor would have learned something about GEICO’s secret
processes. Competitors could more easily determine what type of data GEICO
maintains and how it uses that data, which are critical components of GEICO’s
success.” (ECF No. 92-1, ¶ 8.) Similarly, Defendant asserts that public disclosure
would harm its competitive advantage and that its requested redactions would avoid
such potential for harm. (ECF No. 100, PageID #2243–44, 2246.) As legal support,
Defendant points to Davis v. Geico Casualty Co., No. 2:19-CV-2477, 2021 WL
3883915, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 31, 2021), and Lucid Health, Inc. v. Premier Imaging
Ventures, LLC, No. 2:20-CV-1055, 2021 WL 128956, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 14, 2021),
both of which recognize that companies have a compelling interest in protecting
information that, if disclosed, would cause a competitive disadvantage.
After reviewing the designations in the supplement and joint submission and
corresponding deposition transcripts, the Court finds, with four exceptions identified
below, that the designations contain confidential claims-processing, electronic
system, and propriety data information that should not be made publicly available.
The interest of ensuring nonparties’ access to the information that will be redacted
or sealed is significantly less than in Shane Group, which involved sealing
information necessary to unnamed class members to evaluate a class action
settlement. Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 302. Given the nature of Plaintiff’s allegations
and the absence of interested nonparties, the merits of redacting and sealing the
documents outweigh the public’s interest, if any, in making the sensitive and private
financial and business information public. NetJets Ass’n of Shared Aircraft Pilots v.
NetJets, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-2487, 2016 WL 5349793, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 23, 2016);
London Comput. Sys., Inc. v. Zillow, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-696, 2019 WL 4110516, at *4
(S.D. Ohio Aug. 29, 2019).
The court will not seal pages 21:21–25, 22:1–14, 80:4–9, and 81:11–24 of
Koontz’s deposition testimony. (See ECF No. 100, PageID #6–7, ECF No. 96-1,
PageID #1665–66, 1673–74.) These excerpts do not contain confidential information.
Defendant asserts that nondisclosure is warranted because Plaintiff does not rely on
these excerpts, but that rationale does not overcome the “strong presumption in favor
of openness to court records.” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305 (quotation omitted).
Indeed, Shane Group states that “the public has an interest in ascertaining what
evidence and records [courts] have relied upon in reaching [a] decision,” but that does
not mean that the information that a court does not rely on automatically warrants
nondisclosure, especially when that information is not confidential in nature. Id.
II. Expert Reports
Defendant requests that the Court redact the portions of the expert reports of
Stockton and Tomlin that summarize Defendant’s confidential documents and
witness testimony and that analyze that same information or expose Defendant’s
confidential claim-handling policies and data. (ECF No. 100, PageID #2245.) For the
reasons stated in Defendant’s supplement and those stated above, and based on its
independent review, the Court finds that the merits of redacting this information
outweighs the public interest. The reports rely on information that is confidential in
nature—as outlined above—and could put Defendant at a competitive disadvantage
if disclosed.
III. Defendant’s Internal Email Thread
The parties agree that Defendant’s internal email thread contains information
regarding changes to claim-processing procedures, the timing and implementation of
those changes, and Defendants confidential and proprietary software. (ECF No. 101,
Table 1.) Per Koontz’s declaration, this information is confidential in nature and
could serve to give competitors an inside look into Defendant’s practices and
procedures putting them at a competitive disadvantage. For the same reasons set
forth above, the Court finds that the merits of sealing this entire document outweighs
the public interest in viewing it.
IV. Plaintiff’s Class Certification Motion
Finally, Defendant requests that the Court redact certain excerpts from
Plaintiff’s class certification papers that contain “information on GEICO’s claims-
handling policies and practices for the settlement of total-loss claims, strategic
decisions related to those practices, and the capabilities of GEICO’s proprietary
electronic system to store and make claimant data available.” (ECF No. 100, PageID
#2243.) Because the designation that Defendant seeks to redact contains information
derived from the above redacted or sealed items, and the designations are narrowly
tailored and limited to that information, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to
Geico’s proposed designations, with two exceptions. See Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305.
The Court finds that Defendant’s designations on pages 10 and 11 of the motion for
class certification do not contain the above-mentioned confidential information such
that redaction is not appropriate. (ECF No. 100, PageID #14–15; ECF No. 91, PageID
#2140–41.)
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, with the exception of pages 21:21–25, 22:1–14,
80:4–9, and 81:11–24 of Koontz’s deposition testimony (see ECF No. 100, PageID
#6–7, ECF No. 96-1, PageID #1665–66, 1673–74) and pages 10 and 11 of Plaintiff’s
motion for class certification (see ECF No. 100, PageID #14–15, ECF No. 91, PageID
#2140–41), the designations in Defendants’ supplement to its motion for leave to file
under seal (ECF No. 100, Table) and in the parties’ joint submission (ECF No. 101,
Table 1) may be filed with redactions or under seal pursuant to Local Rule 5.2 and
this Order. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file the redacted versions of its motion
for class certification and supporting documents in accordance with this Order no
later than October 1, 2021.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 28, 2021
J. Philip Calabrese
United States District Judge
Northern District of Ohio