Peters v. Aetna Inc. et al

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 Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion
for Leave to File under Seal Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Aetna and Optum
to Produce Documents, Supporting Memorandum, and Exhibits [Doc. 83].
The Plaintiff moves for leave to file under seal a Motion to Compel
Aetna and Optum to Produce Documents, a Supporting Memorandum, and
Exhibits. [Doc. 83].1 For grounds, the Plaintiff states that the motion to
compel, memorandum of law, and the exhibits thereto all contain information
1 Contemporaneously with her motion to seal, the Plaintiff also filed the subject motion to
compel, memorandum, and exhibits under seal. [Doc. 84].
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 86 Filed 02/23/18 Page 1 of 5

2
designated as “Confidential” or “Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under
the parties’ Protective Order [Doc. 64]. The Defendants do not oppose the
Plaintiff’s request.
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).
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
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 86 Filed 02/23/18 Page 2 of 5

3
tailored to serve that interest.’” Id. at 266 (quoting in part In re Wash. Post
Co., 807 F.2d 383, 390 (4th Cir. 1986)).
Here, the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any interest compelling
enough to overcome the presumptive right of public access to the motion to
compel and its supporting documents, under either the First Amendment or
the common law. As grounds for its motion, the Plaintiff contends that the
motion and supporting memorandum reference materials, included as
exhibits, that were designated “Confidential” and “Confidential -- Attorneys
Eyes Only” pursuant to the Protective Order entered in this action. Over 500
pages of exhibits are attached to the motion to compel, nearly all of which is
stamped “Confidential” and “Confidential -- Attorneys Eyes Only.” The
Plaintiff, however, offers no explanation as to why such material is properly
designated as such. The fact that counsel may have designated certain
material 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 confidentiality afforded under a Protective Order to discovery
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 86 Filed 02/23/18 Page 3 of 5

4
materials does not automatically extend to documents submitted to the
court.”). As the Protective Order itself notes, the Order was
entered for the purpose of facilitating discovery and
protecting confidentiality. Nothing in it will be
construed or presented as a judicial determination
that any specific document or item of information
designated as CONFIDENTIAL or CONFIDENTIAL-
ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY by counsel is subject to
protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure or otherwise until a document-
specific ruling has been made.
[Doc. 64 at 10 ¶10]. Thus, 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. The Plaintiff’s motion to seal, however, fails to
provide sufficient grounds upon which the Court can make such a decision
for each of the 500+ pages submitted as exhibits to the motion to compel.2
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion
for Leave to File under Seal Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Aetna and Optum
to Produce Documents, Supporting Memorandum, and Exhibits [Doc. 83] is
DENIED. The Plaintiff shall have seven (7) days from the entry of this Order
to withdraw its Motion to Compel, the supporting Memorandum, and Exhibits
2 Additionally, the Plaintiff fails to explain why less drastic alternatives to wholesale sealing
are not feasible. The Plaintiff’s motion to compel itself does not discuss any purported
confidential materials in any significant depth. Thus, it is unclear why the motion itself
requires any sealing at all.
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 86 Filed 02/23/18 Page 4 of 5

5
[Doc. 84] from the record. If such motion and its accompanying documents
are not withdrawn within seven (7) days, the entire filing shall be unsealed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: February 23, 2018
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 86 Filed 02/23/18 Page 5 of 5