Nichols v. AARP, Inc.

Background

The parties filed three administrative motions asking to submit documents under seal, meaning outside public view. Defendants sought to seal portions of their motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment, related declarations and exhibits, and portions of their reply. Plaintiffs sought to seal portions of their opposition, a supporting declaration, and attached exhibits.

Legal standard

The court began with the strong presumption that judicial records should be publicly accessible. It applied the “compelling reasons” standard and Northern District of California Local Rule 79-5, which require the requesting party to show that the material is privileged, a trade secret, otherwise legally protected, or otherwise sealable. The court also emphasized that a sealing request must be narrowly tailored. A protective order or confidentiality designation by itself does not establish that material should be sealed.

Defendants’ first motion

The court ruled that exhibits containing plaintiffs’ personal and financial information could be sealed. It also allowed sealing of references to confidential terms in the SHIP Program License and Quality Control Services Agreement and the Relationship Agreement involving AARP, AARP Services, Inc., and Optum Services, Inc. Portions of the filings that explicitly referred to those confidential materials could likewise be sealed.

The court denied sealing for general descriptions of trademark law, statements about AARP’s quality-control efforts and policing of its marks, and descriptions of licensing activity that did not disclose confidential negotiation details or contract terms. Explicit references to confidential contractual mechanisms could be sealed.

Plaintiffs’ motion

Plaintiffs sought to seal portions of their opposition and 28 supporting exhibits, partly because the materials were covered by a protective order or had been designated confidential in related litigation. The court held that these grounds were insufficient. It found that the request was not narrowly tailored and that plaintiffs had not adequately identified the types of information involved or tied them to specific likely harms from disclosure. The court therefore denied plaintiffs’ administrative motion to seal.

Defendants’ reply motion

The court found that many portions of the reply did not reveal confidential information, including discussions of AARP membership benefits, general communications, the “General Program,” a litigation position concerning a 1980 trust agreement, and certain general statements about compensation and insurance activities. The court allowed sealing of material concerning United’s obligations under its Medigap program and information related to the “General Program” when it referenced or cited sealable material, such as the SHIP Agreement. Deposition testimony could be sealed only to the extent it explicitly referred to the SHIP Agreement’s terms.

Disposition

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ordered that defendants’ first administrative motion to seal was granted in part and denied in part; plaintiffs’ administrative motion to seal was denied; and defendants’ administrative motion to seal concerning the reply brief was granted in part and denied in part. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 31, 41, and 46.