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 Aetna’s Motion for Leave to File
under Seal Certain Portions of Aetna’s Reply Brief Supporting Its Motion for
Summary Judgment [Doc. 237].
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
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 241 Filed 07/02/19 Page 1 of 3

2
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 Aetna’s motion. Aetna filed its motion on
June 26, 2019, and it has been accessible to the public through the Court’s
electronic case filing system since that time. Further, Aetna has
demonstrated that its reply brief cites portions of an Administrative Services
Agreement, which the Court has allowed to be filed under seal due to the
commercially sensitive information contained therein, and that the public’s
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 241 Filed 07/02/19 Page 2 of 3

3
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 the limited redaction of this reply brief
is narrowly tailored to serve the interest of protecting Aetna’s confidential and
sensitive business information.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Aetna’s Motion for Leave to File
under Seal Certain Portions of Aetna’s Reply Brief Supporting Its Motion for
Summary Judgment [Doc. 237] is GRANTED, and the redacted portions of
Aetna’s Reply Brief in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment shall be
filed under seal until further Order of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: July 1, 2019
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 241 Filed 07/02/19 Page 3 of 3