Copeland v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Background

Defendant Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. filed an administrative motion under Northern District of California Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5(f) asking the court to consider whether selected portions of plaintiffs’ material should remain sealed. The material consisted of selected portions of Exhibit E to the declaration of Isabelle L. Ord supporting Bayer’s request for judicial notice and motion to dismiss the class action complaint. The exhibit was a Kaiser Permanente “Physician Bill for Services” document.

Bayer stated that plaintiffs had the burden of showing why the redacted information should remain sealed, but Bayer did not oppose sealing the portions that had been provisionally filed under seal. Plaintiffs Travette Copeland and Lila Chu argued that the information included personally identifying information and sensitive health information unrelated to the lawsuit and that the redactions should remain to protect Copeland’s medical privacy.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Because the sealing request concerned material more than tangentially related to the underlying case, the party seeking secrecy had to show compelling reasons that outweighed public access and disclosure policies.

Ruling

The court found compelling reasons to seal the highlighted portions because they contained personally identifying information and confidential medical information. The court stated that the need to protect personal health information and personally identifying information can outweigh the presumption of public access. Judge Beth Freeman therefore granted the administrative motion. The order seals the highlighted portions of Exhibit E at pages 45–46.