Alps Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Kalicki Collier, LLP, 3:19-cv-00709

Alps Property & Casualty filed a motion to file its complaint and all exhibits under seal, arguing "compelling reasons" to protect the materials.
Defendants Kolicki Collier LLP, John Collier, and James Kolicki (KC Defendants) did not oppose; defendant Robin Rumbaugh opposed sealing.
Alps relied principally on two purported grounds: the matter reflects a "private dispute," and some complaint material comprises attorney–client communications/work product.
The court applied the Ninth Circuit "compelling reasons" standard for sealing dispositive filings (complaint and attached exhibits).
The court found the relationship and dispute at issue were already reflected in public filings and that Rumbaugh had waived privilege by pursuing malpractice claims and disclosures; Alps failed to provide specific factual findings showing compelling reasons.
The court denied Alps’s sealing motion, denied subsequent sealing motions as moot, and ordered numerous docket entries unsealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard for sealing complaint/exhibits	Complaint/exhibits should be sealed because they warrant "compelling reasons."	Sealing not justified; public-access presumption applies and movant must meet high burden.	Court treated complaint filings as dispositive for sealing and required "compelling reasons;" Alps failed to meet burden.
"Private dispute" as a compelling reason	Disclosure would reveal a private dispute between parties, justifying sealing.	Most lawsuits are private disputes; Alps offered only conclusory assertion and many dispute details already public.	Rejected: "private dispute" alone is not a compelling reason, and the relationship/dispute here was publicly documented.
Attorney–client privilege / work product	Some communications in the complaint/exhibits were privileged or work product when made and should be sealed.	Rumbaugh (the client) has waived privilege by her conduct (pursuit of malpractice claim and disclosures).	Rejected: privilege waived; not a compelling reason to seal.
Effect on later motions to seal	Subsequent filings referencing complaint should be sealed to conform to initial sealing request.	If initial sealing denied, later sealing motions become moot.	Subsequent motions to seal denied as moot; court ordered listed ECF filings unsealed.

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (presumption of public access; "compelling reasons" required for sealing dispositive materials)
Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (public-access presumption and limits on sealing for embarrassment/incrimination)
Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665 (9th Cir. 2010) (movant bears burden and court must articulate factual findings supporting sealing)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) (distinguishing dispositive vs. non-dispositive for sealing standard)
Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (when court files may be sealed to prevent improper uses)
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (sealing orders must be narrowly tailored to sensitive information)
In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland, 661 F.3d 417 (9th Cir. 2011) (consider redaction before full sealing)
Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981) (scope and purpose of attorney–client privilege)
In re Pacific Pictures Corp., 679 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (voluntary disclosure to third parties can waive privilege)
Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (court must explain basis for sealing without conjecture)