CZ Services, Inc. v. Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc.
- 3:19-cv-04453
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In CZ Services, Inc. v. Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., the court declined to seal requested filings and ordered unredacted versions filed.
Plaintiffs CZ Services, Inc. and CareZone Pharmacy LLC were required to file unredacted versions of the amended complaint and oppositions; the ruling also preserved public access to those filings and affected defendants whose information was referenced.
What happened
In CZ Services, Inc. v. Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., plaintiffs CZ Services, Inc. and CareZone Pharmacy LLC asked to redact parts of an amended complaint and their oppositions to motions to dismiss. They relied on defendants’ designation of certain documents as highly confidential under a protective order.
The court explained that court records are generally open to the public. A party seeking secrecy must show specific, compelling reasons that outweigh the public’s interest in access; a protective-order confidentiality designation alone is not enough.
The court reviewed the unredacted amended complaint and declined to seal the requested portions of it or the requested portions of the oppositions, which discussed the same material. The court directed plaintiffs to file unredacted versions within seven days. The order was issued by the court on September 9, 2022.
The detailed version
- CZ Services, Inc. v. Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. · No. 3:19-cv-04453
- Sept. 9, 2022
Background
Plaintiffs CZ Services, Inc. and CareZone Pharmacy LLC filed motions seeking to seal or redact portions of an amended complaint and oppositions to motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs said that the materials contained information designated by defendants Premera Blue Cross, Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City as “Highly Confidential -- Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under a protective order.
Legal standard
The court stated that judicial records are generally public and that the public has a strong presumptive right of access to them. The party seeking to seal records must identify specific, compelling reasons that outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure. General claims of possible competitive or commercial harm are insufficient, and a designation under a stipulated protective order does not by itself justify sealing.
Ruling
After reviewing the unredacted amended complaint, the court declined to seal the requested portions. It also declined to seal the requested portions of the oppositions to the motions to dismiss because they referred to the same material in the complaint. The court directed plaintiffs to file unredacted versions of the amended complaint and the oppositions on the electronic docket within seven days of the order. The court entered the order on September 9, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.