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 Defendants’ Joint Motion for
Leave to File Under Seal Certain Exhibits and Related Portions of Optum’s
Brief in support of Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 186].
The Defendants move for leave to publicly file redacted versions of
Optum’s brief in support of its motion for summary judgment and Exhibits 2,
4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 16, while filing unredacted copies thereof under
seal, and to file fully under seal Exhibits 5, 7, 12, 17, and 18. [Doc. 186]. As
grounds for sealing, the Defendants contend that these materials contain
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 192 Filed 02/06/19 Page 1 of 4

2
Aetna’s and Optum’s commercially sensitive and proprietary information, as
well as confidential information of particular plan participants. [Id.].
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 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
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 192 Filed 02/06/19 Page 2 of 4

3
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 Defendants’ motion. The Defendants filed
their motion on January 31, 2019, 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 confidential
and sensitive business information as well as protected health information of
non-parties, 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 the documents, the Court concludes that
sealing of these documents is narrowly tailored to serve the interest of
protecting the confidential and sensitive nature of these documents.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Defendants’ Joint Motion for
Leave to File Under Seal Certain Exhibits and Related Portions of Optum’s
Brief in support of Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 186] is GRANTED,
and the redacted portions of Optum’s Brief in support of its Motion for
Summary Judgment and Exhibits 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 16 filed in
support thereof shall be filed under seal until further Order of this Court.
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 192 Filed 02/06/19 Page 3 of 4

4
Exhibits 5, 7, 12, 17, and 18 to Optum’s Brief in support of its Motion for
Summary Judgment shall be filed fully under seal under further Order of this
Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: February 6, 2019
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 192 Filed 02/06/19 Page 4 of 4