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 Portions of Plaintiff’s Reply Briefs [Doc. 111].
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
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 124 Filed 05/16/18 Page 1 of 3

2
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 parties filed their
motion on April 30, 2018, 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 documents at issue contain confidential
business information, including negotiation strategies, pricing information,
and discussions of internal processes that the Defendants consider
proprietary and commercially sensitive, and that the public’s right of access
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 124 Filed 05/16/18 Page 2 of 3

3
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 Parties’ Joint Motion for Leave
to File Under Seal [Doc. 111] is GRANTED, and the redacted portions of the
following documents and materials shall be filed under seal until further
Order of this Court: Plaintiff’s Reply to Aetna’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion
to Compel; Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s Reply to Aetna’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel; Plaintiff’s Reply to Optum’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion
to Compel; and Exhibits 2, 3, 4, and 5 to Plaintiff’s Reply to Optum’s
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: May 15, 2018
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 124 Filed 05/16/18 Page 3 of 3