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’ Motion for
Leave to File under Seal [Doc. 204], as amended [Doc. 208].
By their amended motion, the Defendants move for leave to file under
seal portion of Optum’s reply brief in support of its motion for summary
judgment.
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
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 213 Filed 04/05/19 Page 1 of 3

2
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).
In the present case, the public has been provided with adequate notice
and an opportunity to object to the parties’ motion. The Defendants filed their
motion on March 29, 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 redacted portions of Optum’s reply brief
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 213 Filed 04/05/19 Page 2 of 3

3
reference confidential business information, pricing information, and other
information that the Defendants consider proprietary and commercially
sensitive, 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 Defendants’ confidential and sensitive business information.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion for Leave
to File under Seal [Doc. 204], as amended [Doc. 208], is GRANTED, and the
redacted portions of Optum’s reply brief shall be filed under seal until further
Order of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: April 5, 2019
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 213 Filed 04/05/19 Page 3 of 3