Good Samaritan Hospital L.P. v. MultiPlan, Inc.
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:22-cv-02139
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Good Samaritan Hospital v. MultiPlan, Judge Martinez-Olguin granted a motion to seal confidential agreements and related brief excerpts.
The order affects MultiPlan, Trustmark, Altimetrik, Good Samaritan, and the public by restricting public access to specified agreements and brief excerpts containing confidential business information.
What happened
Good Samaritan Hospital L.P. sued MultiPlan, Inc., and others, and a motion to send the case back was pending. This order addressed only a separate request to keep certain materials from public view.
MultiPlan and Trustmark argued that the materials contained confidential business information, including negotiated contract rates, provider-specific terms, and other proprietary information. They said disclosure could harm their business operations and competitive position.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin found good cause to seal the materials and granted the administrative motion to seal. The sealed materials included specified agreements and portions of the defendants’ brief that quoted those agreements; the motion to send the case back was decided separately.
The detailed version
- Good Samaritan Hospital L.P. v. MultiPlan, Inc. · No. 3:22-cv-02139
- Martinez-Olguin
- Sept. 15, 2023
Background
Good Samaritan Hospital L.P.’s motion to remand was pending, but this order addressed only an administrative motion to seal filed in connection with the opposition to that motion. The opinion states that Altimetrik Corp. filed the opposition and moved to seal portions of its brief and certain agreements. It also states that MultiPlan and Trustmark made representations supporting confidentiality of the materials.
Materials and arguments
MultiPlan sought to seal the Facility Agreement between MultiPlan and Good Samaritan, along with portions of the defendants’ brief quoting that agreement. MultiPlan described its participating-provider agreements as confidential and proprietary, particularly their contract rates, other rate information, and provider-specific terms and conditions. It argued that disclosure could cause irreparable harm to its business operations and competitive advantage.
Trustmark similarly sought to seal the Administrative Services Agreement between Trustmark’s predecessors and Altimetrik, along with portions of the defendants’ brief quoting that agreement. Trustmark described the agreement as confidential and proprietary and argued that disclosure could harm its business operations by exposing it to competitors.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. For records connected more than tangentially to the merits of a case, a party ordinarily must show compelling reasons that outweigh public access. But records attached to motions that are not related, or are only tangentially related, to the merits are subject to the lower “good cause” standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).
Ruling
The court found that the materials were not subject to the strong presumption of public access and that they contained confidential business information. It therefore found good cause to seal them and granted the administrative motion to seal. The order did not decide Good Samaritan’s motion to remand; the court stated that motion would be resolved in a separate order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.