Peters v. Aetna Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:15-cv-00109-MR
SANDRA M. PETERS, on behalf of )
herself and all others similarly )
situated, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) O R D E R
)
AETNA INC., AETNA LIFE )
INSURANCE COMPANY, and )
OPTUMHEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS, )
INC., )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Parties’ Joint Motion for
Leave to File Under Seal Certain Exhibits and Related Portions of Plaintiff’s
Brief in Support of Class Certification. [Doc. 143].
The press and the public have, under both the First Amendment and
the common law, a qualified right of access to judicial documents and
records filed in civil and criminal proceedings. Doe v. Public Citizen, 749
F.3d 246, 265 (4th Cir. 2014). “The common-law presumptive right of access
extends to all judicial documents and records, and the presumption can be
rebutted only by showing that ‘countervailing interests heavily outweigh the
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 149 Filed 08/09/18 Page 1 of 4

2
public interests in access.’” Id. at 265-66 (quoting in part Rushford v. New
Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 1988)). The First
Amendment right of access “may be restricted only if closure is ‘necessitated
by a compelling government interest’ and the denial of access is ‘narrowly
tailored to serve that interest.’” Id. at 266 (quoting in part In re Wash. Post
Co., 807 F.2d 383, 390 (4th Cir. 1986)).
When presented with a motion to seal, the law of this Circuit requires
this Court to: “(1) provide public notice of the request to seal and allow
interested parties a reasonable opportunity to object, (2) consider less
drastic alternatives to sealing the documents, and (3) provide specific
reasons and factual findings supporting its decision to seal the documents
and for rejecting the alternatives.” Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288,
302 (4th Cir. 2000).
In the present case, the public has been provided with adequate notice
and an opportunity to object to the parties’ motion. The parties filed their
motion on August 3, 2018, and it has been accessible to the public through
the Court’s electronic case filing system since that time. Further, the parties
have demonstrated that the documents at issue contain private health
information, as well as confidential business information that the Defendants
consider proprietary and commercially sensitive, and that the public’s right
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 149 Filed 08/09/18 Page 2 of 4

3
of access to such information is substantially outweighed by the compelling
interest in protecting the details of such information from public disclosure.
Finally, having considered less drastic alternatives to sealing the documents,
the Court concludes that sealing of these documents is narrowly tailored to
serve the interest of protecting the sensitive and confidential information
contained therein.
While several of these documents clearly fall within the scope of
reasonable protection of privacy and confidential business information,
others skirt dangerously close to the core of the business practices that are
alleged to be unlawful. The parties are reminded that this is not a secret
tribunal; it is a public court. Even though the Court will grant the parties the
requested relief, portions of this sealing order are granted with reluctance,
and the parties should not take this Order as an indication that such
documents will necessarily be granted protection from disclosure if offered
as exhibits in any public hearing or trial in this matter.
With regard to Exhibit 15, the explanation for why it is entitled to
protection is, at best, scant. Under the circumstances as explained by the
Defendants in their Memorandum, the Court will temporarily seal Exhibit 15,
pending further explanation and justification by the parties.
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 149 Filed 08/09/18 Page 3 of 4

4
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Parties’ Joint Motion for Leave
to File Under Seal [Doc. 143] is GRANTED, and the following documents
and materials filed in support of the Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification
shall be filed under seal until further Order of this Court: the redacted portions
of the Plaintiff’s Brief; the redacted portions of the Declaration of Jason M.
Knott; the redacted portions of Exhibits 24 and 26; and Exhibits 1-10, 12, 15-
23, 27, and 28.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) days of the entry
of this Order, the parties shall file a supplemental brief further explaining and
justifying the permanent sealing of Exhibit 15.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: August 9, 2018
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 149 Filed 08/09/18 Page 4 of 4