Case Information
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON DAVID SARRUF, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:24-cv-00461-JCC v. DEFENDANTS’ STIPULATED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LILLY LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN & OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LILLY LIFE INSURANCE PLAN, SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER SEAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Defendants. I. Relied Requested
Pursuant to the Court’s Order of February 18, 2025 (Dkt. #41), Defendants The Eli Lilly and Company Long Term Disability Plan (the “LTD Plan”) [1] and The Eli Lilly and Company Life Insurance and Death Benefit Plan (the “Life Insurance Plan”) [2] (together, “Defendants”) are
herewith filing their opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. In connection with this filing, Defendants hereby respectfully move the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) and Local Civil Rule 5(g) for an order permitting Defendants to file a redacted version of their opposition on the public docket and an unredacted version of their opposition under seal. Defendants seek leave to file their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion in redacted form and under seal because the opposition extensively references and cites the sealed Administrative Record, which contains Plaintiff’s confidential medical records and information.
II. Relevant Facts and Legal Authority. This action arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq ., and involves a claim for long-term disability benefits. The Administrative Record pertaining to Plaintiff’s claim primarily contains Plaintiff’s personal medical records and documents discussing Plaintiff’s medical information. The Court granted the Parties’ Stipulated Motion to file the Administrative Record under seal on April 11, 2025 (Dkt. #44). Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment contains references to the confidential Administrative Record, including arguments, discussion, and references to Plaintiff’s personal medical records, medical conditions, and other medical-related information.
Although there is a general presumption of public access to court records, courts in this District have recognized that the need to protect medical privacy constitutes a “compelling reason” sufficient to justify sealing records. See, e.g., Karpenski v. Am. Gen. Life Cos., LLC , No. 2:12-CV-01569-RSM, 2013 WL 5588312, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 9, 2013) (granting motion to seal ERISA administrative record due to medical privacy concerns); S.L. by & through J.L. v. Cross , 675 F. Supp. 3d 1138, 1146–47 (W.D. Wash. 2023) (same).
As certified below, the Parties have conferred and agree that filing a redacted version of the opposition on the public docket and filing an unredacted copy of the opposition under seal is the least restrictive means of protecting Plaintiff’s privacy while complying with the Court’s filing procedures. III. Certification Pursuant to LCR 5(g)(3)(A).
The undersigned counsel for the Parties, Kara P. Wheatley and Glenn R. Kantor, conferred via e-mail on May 16, 2025, regarding the need to file Defendants’ opposition under seal. The Parties agree that sealing is appropriate and necessary to protect Plaintiff’s confidential medical information contained therein.
IV. Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request the Court to grant this
stipulated motion to file their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment under seal. Date: May 16, 2025
Respectfully submitted, THE ELI LILLY AND COMPANY LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN AND THE ELI LILLY AND COMPANY LIFE INSURANCE AND DEATH BENEFIT PLAN By: Douglas F. Stewart Douglas F. Stewart (#34068) Bracewell, LLP 701 Fifth Ave, Suite 6850 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: 206-204-6200 Fax: 800.404.3970 doug.stewart@bracewell.com Mark C. Nielson (admitted pro hac vice) Kara P. Wheatley ( admitted pro hac vice )
GROOM LAW GROUP
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20006 kwheatley@groom.com mcn@groom.com Telephone: 202-8861-6339 Facsimile: 202-659-4503 Attorneys for Defendants
[PROPOSED] ORDER
THIS MATTER having come before the Court upon DEFENDANTS’ STIPULATED
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER SEAL, and the Court having considered the motion and all relevant materials, and finding good cause shown, hereby ORDERS:
1. Defendants’ Stipulated Motion ( Dkt. No. 54 ) for Leave to file Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment ( Dkt. No. 55 ) under Seal is GRANTED. 2. Defendants are authorized to file their Opposition under seal in its entirety, without redaction, and in redacted form on the public docket. 3. Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment shall remain under seal unless otherwise ordered by the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of May 2025. A _______________________________________ THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 16th day of May, 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record who receive CM/ECF notifications.
Dated: May 16, 2025 By: /s/ Douglas F. Stewart Douglas F. Stewart, WSBA No. 34068
NOTES
[1] The LTD Plan is incorrectly named in the Complaint as the Lilly Long Term Disability Plan. 27
[2] The Life Insurance Plan is incorrectly named in the Complaint as the Lilly Life Insurance Plan.