Blue Sky Endeavors, LLC et al v. Henderson County Hospital Corporation et al

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:23-cv-00097-MR
BLUE SKY ENDEAVORS, LLC, )
and LAMOND FAMILY MEDICINE, )
P.L.L.C., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. ) O R D E R
)
HENDERSON COUNTY HOSPITAL )
CORPORATION and BLUE RIDGE )
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES, )
INC., )
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the parties’ Motions to Seal
[Docs. 35, 42, 46, 50].
I. BACKGROUND
On April 6, 2023, the Plaintiff Blue Sky Endeavors, LLC (“Blue Sky”)
initiated this action against the Defendants Henderson County Hospital
Corporation (“Pardee Hospital”) and Blue Ridge Community Health Services,
Inc. (“Blue Ridge”) (collectively, “the Defendants”) by filing a complaint in the
Superior Court of Henderson County, North Carolina, asserting, inter alia,
claims for federal and common law trademark infringement of its Blue
Case 1:23-cv-00097-MR Document 63 Filed 10/07/24 Page 1 of 17

2
SkyMD® mark by and through the Defendants’ use of the mark “Pardee
BlueMD.” [Doc. 1-1: Complaint]. On November 6, 2023, the Court entered
a Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan, setting a discovery deadline of
July 15, 2024, and setting this matter for trial during the January 13, 2025
trial term. [Doc. 18].1 On December 20, 2023, the Court entered a Protective
Order to govern the exchange of confidential documents between the
parties. [Doc. 22].
On February 28, 2024, with the consent of the Defendants, Blue Sky
filed an Amended Complaint adding LaMond Family Medicine, P.L.L.C.
(“LaMond Family Medicine”) as a party plaintiff. [Doc. 26]. Blue Sky and
LaMond will be referred to herein collectively as “the Plaintiffs.”
On July 29, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction. [Doc. 32]. The Plaintiffs also moved for leave to permanently
seal Exhibits 16 through 24, which were filed in support of the Motion for
Preliminary Injunction. [Doc. 35].
On August 19, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel certain
discovery responses from the Defendants. [Doc. 41]. The Plaintiffs also
1 The Court subsequently extended the discovery deadline to September 16, 2024. [See
Docs. 25, 34].
Case 1:23-cv-00097-MR Document 63 Filed 10/07/24 Page 2 of 17

3
moved for leave to permanently seal Exhibits 29 through 31, which were filed
in support of that Motion to Compel. [Doc. 42].
On August 19, 2024, the Defendants filed a Motion to Seal their
Response to the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, as well as Exhibits A, B, C, E,
G, and M filed in support of such Response. [Doc. 46].
On August 22, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Seal Exhibit 37 to
their Reply in support of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction. [Doc. 50].
Each of these motions to seal have been fully briefed and are ripe for
disposition.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
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 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
Case 1:23-cv-00097-MR Document 63 Filed 10/07/24 Page 3 of 17

4
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) if the sealing motion is
granted, 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).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal [Doc. 35]
By their first Motion to Seal, the Plaintiffs seek leave to file under
permanent seal the following exhibits submitted in support of their Motion for
Preliminary Injunction:
(1) The deposition of Christina Jones, which was filed as
Exhibit 16;
(2) The deposition of Alexander McMillan, which was
filed as Exhibit 17;
(3) The deposition of Erica Allison, which was filed as
Exhibit 18;
(4) The deposition of Holly Nanney, which was filed as
Exhibit 19;
Case 1:23-cv-00097-MR Document 63 Filed 10/07/24 Page 4 of 17

5
(5) Different versions of the Sub-Recipient Agreement
between the Defendants, which were identified as
Defendants’ Exhibit BRCHS-0004-BRCHS-0038 and
filed as Exhibit 20;
(6) An email chain between employees of Pardee
Hospital and consultant Erica Allison, which was
identified as Defendants’ Exhibits Formation-001 –
Formation-005 and filed as Exhibit 21;
(7) Text messages between David LaMond and an
employee of the Defendants, which were filed as
Exhibit 22;
(8) The expert report of Travis Wiley, which was filed as
Exhibit 23; and
(9) A different version of the Sub-Recipient Agreement
between the Defendants, which was identified as
Exhibit HCHC-0490-HCHC-0530 and filed as Exhibit
24.
[Doc. 35].2 The Defendants consent to the Plaintiffs’ Motion. [Doc. 36].
As grounds for the Motion to Seal, the Plaintiffs state only that the
identified exhibits contain “proprietary information” and that the public
release of such information “may prejudice the Plaintiffs and Defendants.”
[Doc. 35 at 2]. The Defendants go a step further in their Response, noting
that the referenced documents were obtained during discovery and
2 These exhibits were provisionally filed under seal in order to facilitate the Court’s review
of the Motion to Seal. [Doc. 33].
Case 1:23-cv-00097-MR Document 63 Filed 10/07/24 Page 5 of 17

6
designated as “Confidential Information” pursuant to the Protective Order.
[Doc. 36 at 3]. Additionally, the Defendants specifically argue that the
versions of the Defendants’ Sub-Recipient Agreement filed as Exhibits 20
and 24 contain non-public confidential, proprietary, and financial information
concerning the Defendants’ business relationship, and that the email chain
filed as Exhibit 21 contains non-public confidential and proprietary
information concerning Pardee Hospital’s deliberations in choosing the name
“Pardee BlueMD” for its new Federally Qualified Health Center. [Id. at 3-4].
The Defendants contend that the public release of this information would
reveal confidential business and financial information and would harm the
Defendants’ business interests. [Id. at 4].
In the present case, the public has been provided with adequate notice
and an opportunity to object to the Plaintiffs’ Motion. The motion was filed
on August 1, 2024, and it has been accessible to the public through the
Court’s electronic case filing system since that time. Further, having
reviewed the documents that the Plaintiffs propose to seal, the Court finds
that Exhibits 20 and 24, which are various versions of the Defendants’ Sub-
Recipient Agreement, contain non-public confidential, proprietary, and
financial information concerning the Defendants’ business relationship, and
that the public’s right of access to such information is substantially
Case 1:23-cv-00097-MR Document 63 Filed 10/07/24 Page 6 of 17

7
outweighed by the compelling interest in protecting the details of such
information from public disclosure. Finally, having considered less drastic
alternatives to sealing such documents, the Court concludes that the sealing
of Exhibits 20 and 24 is narrowly tailored to serve the interest of protecting
this sensitive information.
As for the remaining exhibits that are identified, the parties have failed
to demonstrate any interest compelling enough to overcome the presumptive
right of public access to these documents, under either the First Amendment
or the common law. In their Response in support of the Plaintiffs’ Motion, the
Defendants contend that these materials were designated “Confidential
Information” pursuant to the Protective Order entered in this action. [Doc.
36]. Neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendants, however, offer any explanation
as to why such material is properly designated as such. Moreover,
the fact that counsel may have designated certain material as confidential
during discovery does not necessarily require sealing when such material is
filed in the record. See Legal Newsline v. Garlock Sealing Techs. LLC, 518
B.R. 358, 363 (W.D.N.C. 2014) (“Protective orders serve legitimate purposes
in both expediting discovery and protecting trade secrets, proprietary
information, privileged communications, and personally sensitive data from
inadvertent disclosure during the process of discovery; however, the
Case 1:23-cv-00097-MR Document 63 Filed 10/07/24 Page 7 of 17

8
confidentiality afforded under a Protective Order to discovery materials does
not automatically extend to documents submitted to the court.”). As the
Protective Order itself notes, “it is understood by the parties that any
documents which become part of an official judicial proceeding, or which are
filed with the Court are public documents, and that such documents can and
will be sealed by the Court only upon motion and in accordance with
applicable law.” [Doc. 22 at 9 ¶ 8]. Thus, the parties’ designation of certain
material as “confidential” is not sufficient, standing alone, to justify sealing.
Moreover, it is ultimately up to the Court, not the parties, to decide whether
materials that are filed in the record of this case should be shielded from
public scrutiny.
With respect to the other exhibits identified, the Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Seal fails to provide sufficient grounds upon which the Court can make such
a decision for each of the 464 pages that are sought to be sealed. Moreover,
the Plaintiffs fail to explain why less drastic alternatives to wholesale sealing,
such as redactions, are not feasible.3 For these reasons, the Plaintiffs’
3 This is especially true with respect to Exhibits 16, 17, 18, and 19, which appear to be
transcripts of entire depositions of certain witnesses. The Plaintiffs have made no effort
to identify the location of any confidential information within these hundreds of pages of
transcripts.
Case 1:23-cv-00097-MR Document 63 Filed 10/07/24 Page 8 of 17

9
Motion to Seal is denied without prejudice with respect to Exhibits 16, 17, 18,
19, 21, and 23.
B. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal [Doc. 42]
In their second Motion to Seal, the Plaintiffs seek leave to file under
permanent seal the following exhibits submitted in support of their Motion to
Compel:
(1) Email correspondence between third party Erica
Allison and multiple individuals of Pardee Hospital,
which was filed as Exhibit 29;
(2) A document shared in email format between Erica
Allison and members of Pardee Hospital, which was
filed as Exhibit 30; and
(3) A text message between Erica Allison and the Chief
Executive Officer of Pardee Hospital addressing her
concerns regarding the use of the allegedly infringing
mark, which was filed as Exhibit 31.
[Doc. 42].4 As grounds for the Motion to Seal, the Plaintiffs state only that
the identified exhibits were designated as “Confidential” pursuant to the
Protective Order. [Doc. 42 at 1]. The Defendants consent to the Plaintiffs’
Motion with respect to Exhibits 29 and 30, arguing that Exhibit 29 contains
non-public and confidential information regarding the Defendants’ internal
4 These exhibits were provisionally filed under seal in order to facilitate the Court’s review
of the Motion to Seal. [See Doc. 58].
Case 1:23-cv-00097-MR Document 63 Filed 10/07/24 Page 9 of 17

10
response to the Plaintiffs’ complaints and that Exhibit 30 contains confidential
information regarding the decision to use the name Pardee BlueMD and a
new logo, as well as related information that was not released publicly. [Doc.
56 at 2-3]. With respect to Exhibit 31, the Defendants have elected to
remove the confidentiality designation from that document and do not
request that it be filed under seal. [Id. at 2 n.4].
The Motion is moot with respect to Exhibit 31, as the Defendants have
now withdrawn that confidentiality designation. In any event, the only basis
for sealing that the Plaintiffs provided was the Defendants’ designation of
that document as confidential, which by itself is not sufficient. With respect
to Exhibits 29 and 30, the parties have failed to demonstrate any interest
compelling enough to overcome the presumptive right of public access to
these documents, under either the First Amendment or the common law.
Neither the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal nor the Defendants’ Response provides
sufficient grounds upon which the Court can determine that these materials
should be sealed. While these documents contain internal discussions
regarding the use of the Defendants’ mark, the parties have not identified
anything in these documents that is confidential or proprietary or that would
be harmful to the Defendants if made publicly available. Moreover, the
parties fail to explain why less drastic alternatives to wholesale sealing, such
Case 1:23-cv-00097-MR Document 63 Filed 10/07/24 Page 10 of 17

11
as redactions, are not feasible. For these reasons, the Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Seal is denied as moot with respect to Exhibit 31 and is denied without
prejudice with respect to Exhibits 29 and 30.
C. Defendants’ Motion to Seal [Doc. 46]
By their Motion to Seal, the Defendants seek leave to file under
permanent seal their Response to the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary
Injunction, as well as the following exhibits:
(1) The deposition of Dr. David LaMond, which was filed
as Exhibit A;
(2) LaMond Family Medicine financial information, which
was filed as Exhibit B;
(3) The deposition of Jake Hunter, the 30(b)(6)
representative for LaMond Family Medicine, which
was filed as Exhibit C;
(4) The Blue SkyMD trademark license, which was filed
as Exhibit E;
(5) Information about LaMond Family Medicine’s
spending on advertising, which was filed as Exhibit
G; and
(6) An email chain that contains confidential, but non-
privileged communications between Dr. LaMond and
Plaintiffs’ counsel.
[Doc. 46]. The Defendants represent that their Response discusses the
information contained in these exhibits. [Id. at 2]. The Defendants
Case 1:23-cv-00097-MR Document 63 Filed 10/07/24 Page 11 of 17

12
provisionally filed under seal their Response [Doc. 47] and the exhibits
thereto [Doc. 45]. They also have filed a redacted version of their Response
on the public docket. [Doc. 44]. The Plaintiffs’ consent to the Defendants’
Motion. [Doc. 57].
In the present case, the public has been provided with adequate notice
and an opportunity to object to the Defendants’ motion. The Defendants filed
their motion on August 19, 2024, and it has been accessible to the public
through the Court’s electronic case filing system since that time. Further,
upon review, the Court finds that the Defendants have demonstrated that
their Response and Exhibits B, E, and G thereto contain proprietary and/or
highly sensitive or technical business and financial information, and that the
public’s right 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
these documents, the Court concludes that permitting the wholesale sealing
of the Defendants’ Response and Exhibits B, E, and G, along with the filing
of a redacted version of the Defendants’ Response on the public docket, is
narrowly tailored to serve the interest of protecting this sensitive information.
With respect to the other exhibits identified, the Defendants’ Motion to
Seal fails to provide sufficient grounds upon which the Court can make such
Case 1:23-cv-00097-MR Document 63 Filed 10/07/24 Page 12 of 17

13
a decision for each of the 126 pages that are sought to be sealed. Moreover,
the Defendants fail to explain why less drastic alternatives to wholesale
sealing, such as redactions, are not feasible.5 For these reasons, the
Defendants’ Motion to Seal is denied without prejudice with respect to
Exhibits A, C, and M.
D. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal [Doc. 50]
In their third motion to seal, the Plaintiffs also seek leave to file under
permanent seal the deposition transcript of Jake Hunter, the 30(b)(6)
representative of LaMond Family Medicine. [Doc. 50]. For grounds, the
Plaintiffs state that this deposition contains “confidential business
information” and the public disclosure of such information “would reveal
confidential business information.” [Id. at 1]. Curiously, although the
Defendants moved to permanently seal the same deposition transcript [see
Doc. 46], in response to the Plaintiffs’ Motion, the Defendants state that they
“take no position regarding the nature of the information set forth in the
exhibit to be sealed, including whether information is of the type that supports
permanently being sealed.” [Doc. 59 at 1].
5 This is especially true with respect to Exhibit C, which appears to be a condensed
transcript of the deposition of Jake Hunter. The Defendants have made no effort to
identify the location of any confidential information within this 73-page condensed
transcript.
Case 1:23-cv-00097-MR Document 63 Filed 10/07/24 Page 13 of 17

14
For the reasons stated with respect to the Defendants’ Motion to Seal
Mr. Hunter’s deposition transcript, the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal is denied
without prejudice.
IV. CONCLUSION
By the present motions, the parties have sought the permanent sealing
of nearly 1,200 pages of documents. There is no doubt that there is some
information contained within these documents that is proprietary,
confidential, and so sensitive as to warrant protection from public disclosure.
By the same token, however, the parties have chosen to litigate their dispute
in a public forum. This Court is not a Star Chamber, and this matter will not
be litigated in secret. To that end, the filing of sealed documents must be
closely scrutinized and every effort should be made by the parties to keep as
much of this litigation accessible to the public.
With this in mind, the Court expects the parties to confer with each
other in a meaningful fashion before filing any further motions to seal. Any
documents that are sought to be sealed must be filed along with the motion
to seal so that the Court may evaluate its contents. The motions to seal must
contain (1) a non-confidential description of the material sought to be sealed;
(2) a statement indicating why sealing is necessary and why there are no
alternatives to filing under seal; and (3) unless permanent sealing is sought,
Case 1:23-cv-00097-MR Document 63 Filed 10/07/24 Page 14 of 17

15
a statement indicating how long the party seeks to have the material
maintained under seal and how the matter is to be handled upon unsealing.
See LCvR 6.1(c). If the materials contain both confidential and non-
confidential information, the parties must specifically identify those portions
of those materials that reference confidential information, and they should
either offer redactions of those documents so that the public may access the
non-confidential portion of those materials or explain why redactions are not
feasible. Any future motions to seal that fail to comply with these basic
requirements will be summarily denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
(1) The Plaintiffs’ Consent Motion to Seal or Otherwise Restrict
Public Access [Doc. 35] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART. Specifically, the Motion is GRANTED with respect to
Exhibits 20 and 24 [Docs. 33-5 and 33-9], and such documents
are hereby SEALED until further Order of the Court. The Motion
is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with respect to Exhibits 16,
17, 18, 19, 21, and 23 [Docs. 33-1, 33-2, 33-3, 33-4, 33-6, 33-7,
33-8].
(2) The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal or Otherwise Restrict Public Access
[Doc. 42] is DENIED AS MOOT with respect to Exhibit 31 [Doc.
Case 1:23-cv-00097-MR Document 63 Filed 10/07/24 Page 15 of 17

16
58-3], and the Clerk is instructed to unseal this exhibit. The
Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with respect to
Exhibits 29 and 30 [Docs. 58-1, 58-2].
(3) The Defendants’ Motion to Seal [Doc. 46] is GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the Motion is GRANTED
with respect to the Defendants’ Response [Doc. 47] and Exhibits
B, E, and G [Docs. 45-1, 45-3, and 45-4], and such documents
are hereby SEALED until further Order of the Court. The Motion
is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with respect to Exhibits A, C,
and M [Docs. 45, 45-2, 45-5].
(4) The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal or Otherwise Restrict Public Access
[Doc. 50] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with respect to
Exhibit 37 [Doc. 58-4].
(5) As to any documents for which sealing was denied without
prejudice, such documents shall remain provisionally under seal
for at least fourteen (14) days to allow the appropriate parties the
opportunity to file a renewed motion to seal, if they so choose. If
no such motion is filed within the fourteen (14) days, the Court
will instruct the Clerk to unseal these documents.
Case 1:23-cv-00097-MR Document 63 Filed 10/07/24 Page 16 of 17

17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: October 7, 2024
Case 1:23-cv-00097-MR Document 63 Filed 10/07/24 Page 17 of 17