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 Opposition to Aetna’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 231].
The parties move for leave to file a redacted version of Plaintiff’s brief
in opposition to Aetna’s Motion for Summary Judgment, as well as sealed or
redacted versions of certain exhibits attached thereto. As grounds for
sealing, the Defendants state that these exhibits contain personal health
information and confidential business information -- including negotiation
strategies, pricing information, discussion of internal processes -- that the
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 236 Filed 06/19/19 Page 1 of 4

2
Defendants consider proprietary and commercially sensitive. As grounds for
redaction of the brief, the Defendants maintain that the brief quotes from or
otherwise characterizes the content of these confidential materials. [Doc.
234]. The Plaintiff takes no position as to whether the exhibits attached to
her brief should be sealed or redacted, but she objects to the redaction of
the brief itself. [See Doc. 231 at 3].
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
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 236 Filed 06/19/19 Page 2 of 4

3
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’ motions. The parties filed their
motion on June 13, 2019, and such motion 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
business information and personal health 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 exhibits, the Court concludes that sealing of these documents is
narrowly tailored to serve the interest of protecting the confidential and
sensitive nature of the information contained therein.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion for
Leave to File under Seal Certain Exhibits and Related Portions of Plaintiff’s
Brief in Opposition to Aetna’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 231] is
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 236 Filed 06/19/19 Page 3 of 4

4
GRANTED, and Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 20, 21, 25, and 32; the
redacted portions of Plaintiff’s Brief; and the redacted versions of Exhibits 2,
12, 13, 14, 15, 23, 28, and 31 filed in support of Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition
shall be filed under seal under further Order of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: June 19, 2019
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 236 Filed 06/19/19 Page 4 of 4