RJ v. Cigna Behavioral Health, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs filed briefing and exhibits supporting a motion for class certification. The defendants had designated much of the information as confidential under a protective order. After previously declining to seal the exhibits in their entirety, the court considered renewed sealing requests from both sides.

The defendants asked to file excerpts or redacted versions of exhibits attached to the plaintiffs’ class-certification motion and reply. The plaintiffs objected, including because the defendants sought to replace the plaintiffs’ exhibits with excerpts selected by the defendants. The plaintiffs separately asked to file redacted versions of specified exhibits and stated that they could not provide redacted versions of other exhibits because the defendants had designated those documents confidential in their entirety.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records carry a strong presumption of public access. Because the materials were attached to briefing on class certification, the parties seeking secrecy had to show compelling reasons supported by specific facts that outweighed the public’s interest in access. The court also applied the local rule requiring sealing requests to be narrowly tailored and to explain the interests supporting secrecy, the injury that disclosure would cause, and why a less restrictive alternative would not work. A protective order alone was not enough to justify sealing.

Defendants’ motion

The court ruled that it was improper for the defendants to unilaterally replace the plaintiffs’ exhibits with excerpts when the plaintiffs had not agreed to reduce the record. The court therefore denied as moot the defendants’ motion as to the proposed excerpts of Motion Exhibits 3, 5, 8, 9, 15, 17, 18, 22, and 30 and Reply Exhibits 9–13. The court separately considered the defendants’ proposed redactions to Motion Exhibit 10.

For Motion Exhibit 10, the defendants sought to redact portions concerning MultiPlan’s processes and procedures for dealing with Cigna and other clients, as well as pricing-methodology activities. The court found compelling reasons to seal that information and found the proposed redactions sufficiently limited. It granted the defendants’ motion as to those redactions.

Plaintiffs’ motion

For the public, redacted versions of Motion Exhibits 8, 9, 16, 18, and 22 and Reply Exhibits 2, 3, 11, and 12, the court found compelling reasons to maintain the plaintiffs’ proposed redactions. The court identified two categories of protected information: the defendants’ nonpublic financial and competitive information, which could give competitors an unfair advantage, and confidential protected health information. The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion as to those exhibits and maintained the redacted versions under seal.

For Motion Exhibits 3, 5, 15, 17, and 30 and Reply Exhibits 9, 10, and 13, the plaintiffs had not filed redacted versions or excerpts. Rather than rule that the exhibits should be entirely unsealed, the court directed the plaintiffs to review the defendants’ proposed excerpts and state whether they would submit those excerpts instead. If the plaintiffs did not want to use those excerpts, they could file other agreed redactions or excerpts, or file a motion under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f) asking the court to decide whether another party’s material should be sealed.

Disposition

The order states that the defendants’ motion, ECF No. 212, was granted in part as to the proposed redactions to Motion Exhibit 10 and otherwise denied as moot. The plaintiffs’ motion, ECF No. 215, was granted in part as to the proposed redactions to Motion Exhibits 8, 9, 16, 18, and 22 and Reply Exhibits 2, 3, 11, and 12, and otherwise denied without prejudice.

The plaintiffs were ordered to file the required statement, stipulated request, or motion within seven days of entry of the order. The defendants were not to file a proposal unless the plaintiffs filed a motion to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed. The court stated that, after resolving the sealing requests, it would ask the parties to refile public versions of the class-certification motion, opposition, and reply.