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 Certain Exhibits and Related Portions of
Defendants’ Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification
and Brief in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Strike Report and Exclude
Testimony of Constantijn Panis, Ph.D. [Doc. 169].
The Defendants move to seal a number of exhibits and portions of their
briefs filed in opposition to the Plaintiff’s class certification and in support of
their motion challenging the testimony of the Plaintiff’s expert. The press
and the public have, under both the First Amendment and the common law,
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 173 Filed 10/03/18 Page 1 of 4

2
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).
In the present case, the public has been provided with adequate notice
and an opportunity to object to the Defendants’ motion. The Defendants filed
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 173 Filed 10/03/18 Page 2 of 4

3
their motion on October 1, 2018, 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
confidential and sensitive business information as well as protected health
information of 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 confidential and sensitive nature of these
documents.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion for Leave
to File Under Seal Certain Exhibits and Related Portions of Defendants’ Brief
in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and Brief in Support
of Defendants’ Motion to Strike Report and Exclude Testimony of Constantijn
Panis, Ph.D. [Doc. 169] is GRANTED, and the following documents and
materials shall be filed under seal until further Order of this Court: the
redacted portions of the Defendants’ brief in opposition to the Plaintiff’s
Motion for Class Certification; the redacted portions of Exhibits 1-5, 8, 15,
16, 27, 78, and 79 to the Defendants’ brief in opposition to the Plaintiff’s
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 173 Filed 10/03/18 Page 3 of 4

4
Motion for Class Certification; Exhibits 6, 7, 10-14, 18-21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 33,
36-41, 43, 45, 46, 48, 51-53, 55, 56, 58, 60-63, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 73, 75,
and 77 to the Defendants’ brief in opposition to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Class
Certification; and the redacted portions of the brief in support of the
Defendants’ Motion to Strike Report and Exclude Testimony of Constantijn
Panis, Ph.D. and the redacted portions of Exhibits 1 and 2 thereto.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: October 3, 2018
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 173 Filed 10/03/18 Page 4 of 4