1031 Canal Development, LLC v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
1031 CANAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC
VERSUS
NATIONAL FIRE & MARINE
INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.
*
*
*
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 24-2457
SECTION “J” (2)
ORDER
Pending before me are two Motions to Seal Documents filed by National Fire & Marine
Insurance Company (“NFM”) and Everest Indemnity Insurance Company (“Everest”). ECF Nos.
38, 40. Although neither motion attaches a supporting memorandum and the proposed orders fail
to recite the findings required by governing case law to support the proposed sealing, both as
required by Local Rule 5.6(D), the Court will nonetheless address the merits of the motions.
Having considered the record, the submissions and arguments, and the applicable law, for the
reasons that follow, the motions are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
I. 	BACKGROUND
This insurance dispute relates to the October 12, 2019, Hard Rock Hotel collapse and
involves Plaintiff’s contractual and extra-contractual claims against Defendants based on a
Builder’s Risk policy. ECF No. 1.
Defendants have filed two motions to seal, one relating to their Memorandum in
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and the other relating to their own Motion to Compel.
ECF Nos. 38, 40. Although both motions ask for leave to file one document (Exhibit 9) under
seal, each motion attaches two sets of documents for which sealing is requested: 	(1) redacted
Memoranda obscuring two sentences on page 4 and the unredacted Memoranda (ECF Nos. 38-2,
Case 2:24-cv-02457-CJB-DPC Document 42 Filed 11/13/25 Page 1 of 5

2
38-3, 40-2 & 40-3); and (2) unredacted copies of Exhibit 9 and fully redacted versions of Exhibit
9 (ECF Nos. 38-4, 38-5, 40-4 & 40-5).
II. 	APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
There is a presumption in favor of access to judicial records,1 and the standard for placing
a document under seal is different from that governing whether unfiled discovery should be kept
confidential.2 “The mere fact that certain information or material has been marked as confidential
pursuant to a protective order is not dispositive . . . and reference to a stipulation or protective
order is not sufficient to establish the necessity of sealing any document or other tangible item.”3
Because the sealing of judicial records is the exception rather than the norm, the court must
be “ungenerous” with its discretion to seal judicial records.4 Before sealing a document, the court
must assess governing case law and determine that sealing is necessary. 	“To decide whether
something should be sealed, the court must undertake a document-by-document, line-by-line
balancing 	of 	the 	public’s 	common 	law 	right 	of 	access 	against 	the 	interests 	favoring
nondisclosure.”5 “Sealings must be explained at ‘a level of detail that will allow for [appellate]
review.’ And a court abuses its discretion if it ‘ma[kes] no mention of the presumption in favor of
the public's access to judicial records’ and fails to ‘articulate any reasons that would support
sealing.’”6
1 8fig, Inc. v. Stepup Funny, L.L.C., No. 23-50890, 2025 WL 1144570, at *4 (5th Cir. Apr. 18, 2025), petition for cert.
filed, (U.S. Sept. 23, 2025) (No. 25-340). .
2 See Bin Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 420 (5th Cir. 2021).
3 Local Rule 5.6(D).
4 Bin Hoa Le, 990 F.3d at 418-19 (citations omitted); see June Med. Servs., L.L.C. v. Phillips, 22 F.4th 512, 519-21
(5th Cir. 2022).
5 June Med. Servs., 22 F.4th at 521 (cleaned up).
6 Binh Hoa Le, 990 F.3d at 419 (citations omitted); accord. United States v. Ahsani, 76 F.4th 441, 452 (5th Cir.
2023) (citations omitted).
Case 2:24-cv-02457-CJB-DPC Document 42 Filed 11/13/25 Page 2 of 5

3
While there is a presumption of public access to judicial records, courts have recognized
that this access is not absolute.7 In certain cases, litigants may have good reasons to file documents
under seal.8 For instance, courts have found compelling interests in secrecy when a case involves
a minor, protected banking or financial information, trade secrets, and national security matters.9
Courts also recognize the strong interest in keeping personal financial records from public view,
particularly when the information is that of a non-party individual.10 Inspection of court records
may not be used “to gratify private spite or promote public scandal” or to “serve as reservoirs of
libelous statements for press consumption.”11
This Court’s Local Rule 5.6(A) explicitly requires a party seeking to file a document under
seal to explore all reasonable alternatives, “including a line-by-line analysis of the documents or
other tangible item (including documents marked confidential under a protective order) to redact
only the truly sensitive information rather than simply seeking to file the entire document or other
item under seal.” Further, as Rule 5.6(D) makes clear:
The mere fact that certain information or material has been marked as confidential
pursuant to a protective order is not dispositive of whether the information or
material will be sealed when filed with the court, and reference to a stipulation or
protective order is not sufficient to establish the necessity of sealing any document
or other tangible item.
7 See, e.g., S.E.C. v. Van Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d 845, 848 (5th Cir. 1993) (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc.,
435 U.S. 589, 597-98 (1978)); N. Cypress Med. Ctr. Operating Co. v. Cigna Healthcare, 781 F.3d 182, 203–04 (5th
Cir. 2015) (recognizing that a court may seal documents that contain confidential business information (citations
omitted)); Ruby Slipper Cafe, LLC v. Belou, No. 18-1548, 2020 WL 4897905, at *9 (E.D. La. Jan. 8, 2020) (noting
that courts have recognized “parties’ strong interest in keeping their detailed financial information sealed” because
the public has a “relatively minimal interest in [that] particular information” (citations omitted)); Westside-Marrero
Jeep Eagle, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., No. 97-3012, 1998 WL 186728, at *1 (E.D. La. Apr. 17, 1998) (maintaining exhibit
under seal because the document contained sensitive and proprietary financial information about individual
dealerships that, if unsealed, could cause commercial and competitive harm to such dealers).
8 Binh Hoa Le, 990 F.3d at 419.
9 Doe v. Crawford, 702 F. Supp. 3d 509, 513 (S.D. Miss. 2023) (citations omitted).
10 St. Charles-Guillot Inv., LLC v. One Source Roofing, Inc., No. 23-30, 2024 WL 5440833, at *2 (E.D. La. Oct. 21,
2024) (Long, J.) (citations omitted).
11 Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598 (quotation omitted).
Case 2:24-cv-02457-CJB-DPC Document 42 Filed 11/13/25 Page 3 of 5

4
Despite this unambiguous instruction, the sole basis for sealing set forth in both motions is that the
Stipulated Protective Order requires confidential materials be filed under seal. ECF No. 38 at 1;
No. 40 at 1.
In addition, contrary to movant’s assertion, the Stipulated Protective Order does not require
that confidential materials be filed under seal. Rather, ¶ XVII of the Stipulated Protective Order
specifies that any motions that refer or include confidential information “shall follow the
procedures of the Eastern District of Louisiana for proper referencing to such Confidential
Information.” ECF No. 32 at 12. Rule 5.6 sets forth the proper procedures for filing documents
marked confidential during discovery.
Having reviewed the attachments to both motions, the Court finds that obscuring two
sentences from the supporting Memoranda is appropriate. However, the Court cannot find that
sealing Exhibit 9 in its entirety, as requested, is consistent with the public’s right of access.
Rather, a redaction of the exhibit is the appropriate course.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Having considered the record, the submissions, and the applicable law, Defendants’
Motions will be granted in part and denied in part. 	Defendants’ request to file the redacted
Memoranda in the public record and the unredacted Memoranda under seal is granted. With regard
to Exhibit 9, however, Defendants are directed to review Local Rule 5.6 and re-file motions to seal
after conducting the required line-by-line analysis of Exhibit 9 to prepare a proposed redacted
version for filing in the public record along with the unredacted version for filing under seal.
Defendants are reminded of Local Rule 5.6(G)’s 7-day period within which to file a motion
to withdraw any document submitted for filing under seal when the request is denied.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
Case 2:24-cv-02457-CJB-DPC Document 42 Filed 11/13/25 Page 4 of 5

5
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Seal are GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE as stated herein.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of November, 2025.
____________________________________
DONNA PHILLIPS CURRAULT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12th
Case 2:24-cv-02457-CJB-DPC Document 42 Filed 11/13/25 Page 5 of 5