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 Aetna’s Supplemental
Memorandum in Support of Continued Sealing of Portions of Exhibit 15 to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification [Doc. 154] and the Plaintiff’s
Response to Aetna’s Supplemental Memorandum [Doc. 155].
On August 9, 2018, the Court entered an Order granting the parties’
joint motion to seal certain exhibits submitted in support of the Plaintiff’s
motion for class certification. [Doc. 149]. With respect to Exhibit 15, the
Court ordered that the exhibit should be only temporarily sealed, and the
Court directed the parties to file supplemental briefing further explaining and
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 156 Filed 09/06/18 Page 1 of 4

2
justifying the permanent sealing of this exhibit. [Id. at 4]. The parties filed
their supplemental briefs on August 23, and 27, 2018. [Docs. 154, 155]. In
their supplemental filings, the Defendants (collectively, “Aetna”) advocate
allowing Exhibit 15 to be filed with limited redactions, while the Plaintiff
contends that the exhibit should not be sealed at all.
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 15 is a chart that quotes standardized plan provisions
from twenty-two Summary Plan Descriptions (“SPDs”) for Aetna plans. The
quoted provisions include typical plan language such as the definitions of
“Medically Necessary,” “Negotiated Charge,” and “Network Provider.” There
does not appear to be any meaningful variation of these terms among the
plans. [See Doc. 146-3].
The right of public access to judicial records and documents “may be
abrogated only in unusual circumstances.” Doe v. Public Citizen, 749 F.3d
246, 266 (4th Cir. 2014) (quoting Stone v. Univ. of Maryland Med. Sys. Corp.,
855 F.2d 178, 182 (4th Cir. 1988)). The presumption of public access can
be rebutted “if countervailing interests heavily outweigh the public interests
in access.” Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th
Cir. 1988). As the party seeking to overcome this presumption, Aetna bears
the burden of demonstrating that a significant interest outweighs the
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 156 Filed 09/06/18 Page 2 of 4

3
presumption. See Virginia Dep’t of State Police v. Washington Post, 386
F.3d 567, 575 (4th Cir. 2004).
In support of its request for a limited redaction, Aetna argues that
certain customers “do not make their SPDs publicly-available and take
deliberate steps to limit disclosure only to their employees and beneficiaries.”
[Doc. 154 at 4]. In support of this argument, Aetna submits declarations from
six plan sponsors claiming that disclosure of their SPDs would cause
competitive harm by providing information that competitors could use to
recruit employees or information about labor costs. [See, e.g., Doc. 154-2 to
154-7]. Aetna and the plan sponsors do not offer any detail, however, as to
how the particular information cited from the SPDs that is cited in Exhibit 15
could possibly be damaging to competitive interests if disclosed. Exhibit 15
does not include all of the provisions of the SPDs; rather, it quotes from
selected standardized provisions of the plans, including the definitions of
“Medically Necessary,” “Negotiated Charge,” and “Network Provider.” The
plan sponsor declarations do not address these standardized provisions or
explain why disclosing them would be competitively harmful to their
businesses. A conclusory statement that disclosure of the SPDs in their
entireties would be harmful is simply insufficient to justify sealing the limited
information provided in Exhibit 15.
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 156 Filed 09/06/18 Page 3 of 4

4
The plan sponsors contend that, due to the commercially sensitive
nature of the SPDs, they limit the disclosure of the SPDs only to their
beneficiaries and employees. Many of these plan sponsors, however, have
thousands of employees. The Court fails to see how the public filing of the
limited information set forth in Exhibit 15 could possibly do any competitive
harm when the SPDs cited are already disseminated to thousands of
employees on an unrestricted basis.
For all these reasons, the Court will deny the Defendants’ request to
allow a redacted version of Exhibit 15 to be filed.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendants’ request for a
limited redaction of Exhibit 15 is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall unseal
Exhibit 15 to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and file Exhibit 15
as an unsealed document on the public docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: September 6, 2018
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 156 Filed 09/06/18 Page 4 of 4