Hetzel v. ANC Healthcare, Inc. et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:23-cv-00152-MR-WCM
DAVID JOHN HETZEL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
)
ANC HEALTHCARE, INC.; )
ANC MISSION HOSPITAL, INC.; )
HCA HEALTHCARE, INC.; )
HCA MANAGEMENT SERVICES, L.P.; )
MH MASTER HOLDINGS, LLLP; )
MH HOSPITAL MANAGER, LLC; )
MH MISSION HOSPITAL, LLLP; )
and HCA HEALTHCARE )
MISSION FUND, LLC, )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________ )
This matter is before the Court on the following motions to seal:
(1) A Motion to Seal Brief and Exhibit Supporting Motion to Dismiss (the
“First Motion to Seal,” Doc. 23) filed by MH Mission Hospital, HCA
Healthcare, HCA Management, MH Master, MH Hospital Manager, and
HCA Healthcare Mission Fund’s (“Defendants”);
(2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Portions of Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
filed by Plaintiff David John Hetzel, M.D. (the “Second Motion to Seal,”
Doc. 29); and
Case 1:23-cv-00152-WCM Document 37 Filed 08/07/24 Page 1 of 7

2
(3) Defendants’ Motion to Seal Brief and Exhibit Supporting Motion to
Dismiss (the “Third Motion to Seal,” Doc. 33).
I. Legal Standard
In evaluating a motion to seal, the Court must “(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).
Additionally, Local Civil Rule 6.1 states that “there is a presumption
under applicable common law and the First Amendment that materials filed
in this Court will be filed unsealed.” LCvR 6.1(a). To support sealing, a party
must set forth, among other things: (1) a non-confidential description of the
material sought to be sealed; (2) a statement indicating why sealing is
necessary and why there are no alternatives to filing under seal; and (3)
supporting statutes, case law, or other authority. LCvR 6.1(c).
II. Discussion
A. The Report
The First, Second, and Third Motions to Seal (collectively, the “Motions
to Seal”) seek to seal an unredacted copy of the National Practitioner Data
Bank (the “Data Bank”) report (the “Report”) at issue in this case, and
Case 1:23-cv-00152-WCM Document 37 Filed 08/07/24 Page 2 of 7

3
unredacted copies of the parties’ briefs, which address portions of the Report.
See Doc. 25 (Defendants’ unredacted opening brief); Doc. 25-1 (the Report);
Doc. 31 (Plaintiff’s unredacted response); Doc. 35 (Defendants’ unredacted
reply). The documents sought to be sealed are collectively referred to herein as
the “Subject Documents.”
The Motions to Seal have been pending since September and October of
2023, and redacted versions of the Subject Documents have appeared on the
public docket since that time. See Docs. 24, 24-1, 30, 34. Further, it appears
that the parties have complied with the requirements of Local Civil Rule 6.1.
The parties assert that sealing the Subject Documents is warranted
because “‘[i]nformation reported to the [Data Bank] is … confidential’ such that
it may only be disclosed through the procedures for querying the [Data Bank]
and/or challenging [a Data Bank] report.” Doc. 23 at ¶ 3; Doc. 29 at ¶ 3; Doc.
33 at ¶ 3. See 42 U.S.C. § 11137(b)(1) (“Information reported under this
subchapter is considered confidential and shall not be disclosed (other than to
the physician or practitioner involved) except with respect to professional
review activity ... or in accordance with regulations of the Secretary
promulgated pursuant to subsection (a) of this section.”); 45 C.F.R. § 60.20(a)
(“Information reported to the [Data Bank] is considered confidential and shall
not be disclosed outside the Department of Health and Human Services….”).
Other courts have granted motions to seal Data Bank reports. See
Case 1:23-cv-00152-WCM Document 37 Filed 08/07/24 Page 3 of 7

4
United States v. DVH Hosp. All., No. 2:19-cv-01560, 2023 WL 3724178 (D. Nev.
May 26, 2023); Doe v. Azar, No. 6:19-cv-2074, 2020 WL 13349088, at *3 (M.D.
Fla. June 10, 2020).
However, the Report is the foundation of Plaintiff’s claims, and therefore
will be central to the adjudicative process. See Kantsevoy v. LumenR, LLC, No.
ELH-17-359, 2017 WL 11456498, at *4 (D. Md. Nov. 27, 2017) (“when ruling
on a motion to seal, courts consider how relevant or central the disputed
documents are to the claims at issue.”); United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044,
1049 (2d Cir. 1995) (discussing the “strong weight to be accorded the public
right of access to judicial documents” based on the “role those documents
played in determining litigants' substantive rights….”); see also Alston v.
Jones, No. 1:19-CV-96, 2022 WL 1656636, at *2-4 (M.D.N.C. May 24, 2022)
(denying plaintiff's request to seal specific medical records that were “at the
heart” of plaintiff's medical negligence claim “and to the public's understanding
of the basis for the Court's summary judgment decision” while sealing other
medical records due to the large amount of private medical information
contained in the exhibits that was not relevant to the dispute at hand, while
also reminding the parties that plaintiff's “health records will likely be public
if they are offered into evidence at trial”).
Further, while the relevant statute classifies Data Bank reports as
confidential, it does not make such confidentiality absolute. See 42 U.S.C. §
Case 1:23-cv-00152-WCM Document 37 Filed 08/07/24 Page 4 of 7

5
11137(b)(1) (“Nothing in this subsection shall prevent the disclosure of such
information by a party which is otherwise authorized, under applicable State
law, to make such disclosure.”). Similarly, the regulations anticipate that Data
Bank reports will be used in certain types of litigation. See 45 C.F.R.
60.18(a)(1)(v) (allowing use of Data Bank reports in medical malpractice
litigation).
Having considered the Motions to Seal, the public’s interest in access to
the Report, the centrality of the Report to Plaintiff’s claims, and alternatives
to sealing, the undersigned is not persuaded that the Report should be sealed
in its entirety. See Gabros v. Shore Medical Center, No. 1:16-6135-NLH-JS,
2020 WL 6055151, at *2-3 (D. N.J. Oct. 14, 2020) (denying motion to seal Data
Bank report and rejecting argument that the relevant statute required sealing
Data Bank reports in every instance of civil litigation because the “generalized
public benefit from a confidential reporting system allowing medical employers
to share information about the qualifications of licensed medical professionals”
was outweighed “when those reports are themselves evidence in a matter
pending in federal court or any court,” and explaining that plaintiff’s “case
hinges on allegations that [Data Bank] reports about him were false and he
demands a jury trial. Plaintiff would have his allegations litigated in a star
chamber with a jury of ordinary citizens presumably barred from discussing
the case after their service in a closed courtroom.”) (internal citation omitted);
Case 1:23-cv-00152-WCM Document 37 Filed 08/07/24 Page 5 of 7

6
Morrison v. Delray Medical Center, Inc., No. 23-CV-80512-BER, 2024 WL
1603489, at *4 (S.D. Fl. April 12, 2024) (following Gabros).
However, because the Report includes information protected pursuant to
Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Plaintiff’s full date of birth)
as well as other personal identifying information (Plaintiff’s address),
Defendants will be directed to file a publicly available copy of the Report that
redacts that information.
B. The Guidebook and Code Lists
The First Motion to Seal and the Third Motion to Seal also ask that the
Data Bank Guidebook and Data Bank “Code Lists” remain under seal. See
Docs. 25-1 & 35-1. Defendants acknowledge, however, that the Data Bank
Guidebook is not confidential. See Doc. 23 at 2, n.2. While Defendants do not
address the confidentiality of the Code Lists, that information appears in
Defendants’ public filing. See Doc. 34-1. Accordingly, both documents will be
unsealed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motions to Seal (Docs. 23, 29,
33) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows:
1. The unredacted copy of the Data Bank Report (Doc. 25-1) is
SEALED until further order of the Court in light of the presence
of Plaintiff’s personal identifying information. Defendants SHALL
FILE a copy of the Report that redacts Plaintiff’s personal
Case 1:23-cv-00152-WCM Document 37 Filed 08/07/24 Page 6 of 7

7
identifying information, as described above, on or before August
14, 2024.
2. The following documents are UNSEALED:
a. The unredacted copy of Defendants’ opening brief (Doc. 25)
b. The Data Bank Guidebook (Doc. 25-2);
c. The unredacted copy of Plaintiff’s response (Doc. 31);
d. The unredacted copy of the Mission Defendants’ reply (Doc.
35); and
e. The Data Bank Code Lists (Doc. 35-1).
Signed: August 6, 2024
Case 1:23-cv-00152-WCM Document 37 Filed 08/07/24 Page 7 of 7