AssuredPartners of Arizona LLC v. Barrios et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
AssuredPartners of Arizona LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
Jason Barrios, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-03849-PHX-DJH
ORDER
Plaintiff AssuredPartners of Arizona LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an Unopposed Motion
for Leave to File Pages 38-45 of Dkt. No. 1-1 Under Seal. (Doc. 23). Plaintiff states that
Doc. 1-1 pages 32–45 (“Exhibit C”) is a list of Plaintiff’s clients that contains further
confidential business information, such as client policy numbers, premiums, and revenue.
(Id. at 1). This list was inadvertently filed alongside Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint
(Doc. 1) as a part of the public record, and Plaintiff now requests to seal Exhibit C to
remedy this error. (Doc. 23 at 2). Defendants Jason Barrios and Sequel Insurance Services,
Inc. do not oppose the relief requested. (Id.)
All documents filed with the court are “presumptively public.” San Jose Mercury
News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (“It is well-established
that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary,
presumptively public.”). “[A] party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the burden
of overcoming this strong presumption.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809
F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447
Case 2:25-cv-03849-DJH Document 26 Filed 11/03/25 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)).
Two standards govern requests to seal documents or court records: the “good
cause” standard and the “compelling reasons” standard. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n,
605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010) amended on other grounds by 605 F.3d 665. “The party
seeking to seal a document attached to a non-dispositive motion must meet the lower ‘good
cause’ standard pursuant to Rule 26(c).” Dish Network L.L.C. v. Sonicview USA, Inc., 2009
WL 2224596, at *6 (S.D. Cal. July 23, 2009) (citations omitted).
Here, Exhibit C was attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint, not a dispositive motion, and
is not integral to Plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. 23 at 2). Therefore, the “good cause” standard
applies. Good cause requires “a ‘particularized showing’ that ‘specific prejudice or harm
will result’ if the information is disclosed.” Torliatt v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 570
F. Supp. 3d 781, 801 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen.
Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002)). Plaintiff argues that Exhibit C
contains client information not known to the general public, which would be highly
valuable to competitors as it includes, amongst other things, renewal dates and policy types.
(Doc. 23 at 5). Further, Plaintiff asserts that the disclosure of Exhibit C would cause it
irreparable harm in the form of loss of business, business opportunity, and goodwill.
(Id. at 6).
The Court agrees that Exhibit C should be filed under seal. Client identities and
other confidential client information have been recognized as the type of sensitive business
information that warrants filing under seal. See, e.g., Primus Group, Inc. v. Inst. for Envt’l.
Health, Inc., 395 F. Supp. 3d 1243, 1268 (N.D. Cal. 2019); Queen’s Med. Ctr. v. Kaiser
Found. Health Plan, Inc., 2014 WL 1234506, *2 (D. Haw. 2014). Plaintiff’s competitors
could obtain a competitive advantage from obtaining the information in Exhibit C, and,
thus, good cause exists for sealing the exhibit.
However, the issue remains that Plaintiff’s requested relief is not feasible. Plaintiff
did not individually file the exhibits to its Complaint (see Doc. 1-1 (containing Exhibits
A–C)), and the Clerk’s Office is unable to partially seal documents. Therefore, the Court
Case 2:25-cv-03849-DJH Document 26 Filed 11/03/25 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
will (1) seal the Complaint with all Exhibits (Doc. 1) and (2) direct Plaintiff to file an
Amended Complaint that either redacts or omits Exhibit C.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 23) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to SEAL
the Complaint and corresponding exhibits (Doc. 1).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within one (1) day of this Order, Plaintiff
shall file an Amended Complaint that either redacts or omits Exhibit C.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate Plaintiff’s
Motion for Expedited Discovery (Doc. 12) as moot, the parties having reached a Stipulation
on the same.
Dated this 3rd day of November, 2025.
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-03849-DJH Document 26 Filed 11/03/25 Page 3 of 3