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 Exhibits and Related Portions of Plaintiff’s
Response to Defendants’ Motion to Strike Report and Exclude Testimony of
Constantijn Panis, Ph.D. [Doc. 174] and the parties’ Joint Motion for Leave
to File Under Seal Exhibits and Portions of Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of
Class Certification [Doc. 178].
The parties jointly move to seal portions of the exhibits and portions of
the brief filed in opposition to the Defendants’ motion challenging the
testimony of the Plaintiff’s expert and portions of the exhibits and portion of
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 182 Filed 10/11/18 Page 1 of 4

2
the brief filed in further support of the Plaintiff’s motion for class certification.
[Docs. 174, 178].
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 182 Filed 10/11/18 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 parties’ motions. The parties filed their
motions on October 5 and 9, 2018, respectively, and such motions have
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 parties’ Joint Motion for Leave
to File Under Seal Exhibits and Related Portions of Plaintiff’s Response to
Defendants’ Motion to Strike Report and Exclude Testimony of Constantijn
Panis, Ph.D. [Doc. 174] and the parties’ Joint Motion for Leave to File Under
Seal Exhibits and Portions of Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Class Certification
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 182 Filed 10/11/18 Page 3 of 4

4
[Doc. 178] are GRANTED, and the following documents and materials shall
be filed under seal until further Order of this Court: the redacted portions of
the Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to Strike Report and Exclude
Testimony of Constantijn Panis, Ph.D., and the redacted portions of Exhibits
1 and 2 thereto; and the redacted portions of the Plaintiff’s Reply in Support
of Class Certification, and the redacted portions of Exhibits 1 and 2 thereto.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: October 10, 2018
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 182 Filed 10/11/18 Page 4 of 4