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 Certain Exhibits and Related Portions of Plaintiff’s
Brief in Opposition to Optum’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 198].
The parties jointly move to seal portions of certain exhibits and portions
of the brief filed in opposition to Optum’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
[Doc. 198]. While the parties agree that certain exhibits should be sealed,
the Plaintiff objects to the redactions to her brief. [Id. at 3].
The press and the public have, under both the First Amendment and
the common law, a qualified right of access to judicial documents and
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 202 Filed 03/21/19 Page 1 of 3

2
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 parties’ motions. The parties filed their
motion on March 15, 2019, and such motion has been accessible to the
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 202 Filed 03/21/19 Page 2 of 3

3
public through the Court’s electronic case filing system since that time.
Further, the parties have demonstrated that the documents at issue (and the
portions of those documents directly quoted in the Plaintiff’s Brief) 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 Certain Exhibits and Related Portions of Plaintiff’s Brief in
Opposition to Optum’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 198] is
GRANTED, and the exhibits and portions of the Plaintiff’s Brief identified in
the table set forth in the parties’ Motion to Seal [Doc. 198 at 2-3] shall be
sealed until further Order of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: March 21, 2019
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 202 Filed 03/21/19 Page 3 of 3