United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
H.
Russel Holland United States District Judge
Motion
to Intervene[1]
On
remand from the Ninth Circuit, the court considers United
Policyholders' motion to intervene in this case for the
limited purpose of seeking to unseal the court's orders
resolving cross-motions for partial summary judgment. This
motion is opposed by defendant National Fire & Marine
Insurance Company.[2] Upon remand, the court called upon United
Policyholders and National Fire to file supplemental
briefing, [3] which has been timely filed.[4]Oral argument on
the motion to intervene was requested but is not deemed
necessary.
Plaintiff
Karen Cosgrove asserted breach of contract and bad faith
claims against defendant. Plaintiff and defendant cross-moved
for partial summary judgment, and at oral argument on April
7, 2017, the court resolved the motions.[5] On April 10,
2017, the court entered a written order in which it provided
a detailed explanation of its oral rulings.[6] On May 4, 2017,
the parties formally notified the court that they had reached
a settlement.[7] As part of their settlement, the parties
requested that the court vacate and seal its orders on the
cross-motions for partial summary judgment (Docket Nos. 170
and 171).[8] Defendant's attorney avers that the
settlement agreement “was expressly conditioned on the
vacating and sealing of” these orders and that
“[t]his was a material term of the” Settlement
Agreement.[9]On May 5, 2017, the court entered an order
vacating and sealing the orders at Docket Nos. 170 and
171.[10] On May 9, 2017, the parties filed a
stipulation of dismissal, [11] which the court granted on May
10, 2017, dismissing this case in its entirety with
prejudice.[12]
On
November 3, 2017, United Policyholders moved to intervene for
the limited purposes of unsealing and reinstating the
court's orders resolving the cross-motions for partial
summary judgment.[13] On January 18, 2018, the court denied
United Policyholders' motion to intervene.[14] United
Policyholders appealed. On May 6, 2019, the Ninth Circuit
affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in
part.[15] The Ninth Circuit affirmed this
court's denial of United Policyholders' motion to
intervene for the purpose of reinstating the vacated
orders.[16] The Ninth Circuit, however, held that
this court erred in denying United Policyholders' motion
to intervene for the purpose of unsealing the vacated
orders.[17] The Ninth Circuit instructed this court,
on remand, to “balanc[e] the public interest with
potential prejudice to the parties and the other factors to
be considered in deciding a permissive intervention
motion.”[18]
In
denying intervention, this court did not give separate
consideration to United Policyholders' motion to
intervene to file a motion to unseal. Having now done so, the
court grants United Policyholders' motion to intervene to
file a motion to unseal the orders at Docket Nos. 170 and
171. National Fire's claims of prejudice cannot overcome
the strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial
decisions. Because the orders in question will remain
vacated, there will be little to no prejudice to the parties
if United Policyholders is permitted to intervene to file a
motion to unseal.
The
court will entertain United Policyholders' motion to
unseal the orders at Docket Nos. 170 and 171. However, before
filing said motion, United Policyholders will please consider
that it and the general public already have access to the
vacated and sealed written order on the cross-motions for
partial summary judgment at Docket No. 171. The order at
Docket No. 171 was put in the public domain upon filing with
the clerk of court and can be found by doing a quick internet
search using “Cosgrove” and “National
Fire” as search terms. While the court promptly sealed
the orders in CM/ECF after National Fire and Cosgrove reached
their settlement, the parties apparently did not consider
that the order at Docket No. 171 had already been put in the
public domain.
Should
United Policyholders decide to file a motion to unseal, that
motion shall be filed on or before July 3, 2019.
---------
Notes:
[1]Docket No. 177.
[2]Docket No. 180.
[3]Docket No. 189.
[4]Docket Nos. 190 and 191.