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 Motion of Defendants Aetna
Inc. and Aetna Life Insurance Company for Leave to File under Seal Private
Health Records [Doc. 32].
Defendants Aetna Inc. and Aetna Life Insurance Company moves the
Court for leave to file under seal certain medical records of the Plaintiff that
are to be filed in support of their Motion to Dismiss. Both the Plaintiff and
Optumhealth Care Solutions, Inc. consent to the Defendants’ motion. [Doc.
32].
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 43 Filed 09/07/15 Page 1 of 3

2
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
and for rejecting the alternatives.” Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288,
302 (4th Cir. 2000).
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 43 Filed 09/07/15 Page 2 of 3

3
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 31, 2015, and it has been accessible to the public
through the Court’s electronic case filing system since that time. Further, the
Defendants have demonstrated that the documents at issue contain
personal health information regarding the Plaintiff, 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 Plaintiff’s privacy.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to Seal
[Doc. 32] is GRANTED, and the Defendants shall be permitted to file the
Plaintiff’s Explanation of Benefits forms under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 43 Filed 09/07/15 Page 3 of 3