Migliaccio v. Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America
686 F.3d 1115
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Allianz appeals district court’s denial of unsealing in four related class actions against insurers over annuity marketing to seniors.
- Records in dispute were created for summary judgment and Daubert proceedings involving Dr. McCann’s causation opinions.
- Dr. Bodie was appointed as Rule 706 expert; his report and related records were sealed.
- Fidelity and Midland’s summary judgment motions were granted/denied; Allianz’s case stayed pending resolution in other cases.
- District court held the records were sealed under the nondispositive motion exception and did not apply compelled public access.
- On appeal, court reverses and remands to unseal with redactions to protect sensitive information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court applied the correct sealing standard | Allianz | District court applied good cause for nondispositive motion | No; compelled reasons required under Kamakana must be weighed. |
| Whether records were effectively connected to dispositive proceedings | Allianz | Records tied to pending summary judgment | Yes; records fall under the exception and public access should be considered excepted. |
| Whether there are compelling reasons to seal the records | Allianz | Records justified by privacy/competitive concerns | No compelling reasons shown; must disclose with redactions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 F.3d 589 (9th Cir. 1978) (public access to judicial records generally favored)
- Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (explicit framework for sealing via compelling reasons)
- Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (strong presumption of access; good cause vs. compelling reasons)
- San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 1999) (pretrial civil records subject to access rights)
- Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2002) (balancing standard for protective orders; compelling reasons standard applying to sealing)
- Lust ex rel. Lust v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 89 F.3d 594 (9th Cir. 1996) (dispositive of a motion for summary judgment; standard considerations)