RJ v. Cigna Behavioral Health, Inc.
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-02255
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In RJ v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company, Judge Davila granted the parties’ motion to seal portions of class-certification exhibits.
The parties’ filings and the public’s access to the specified class-certification exhibits were affected. The ruling protected personal health information and confidential and proprietary information identified by defendants while requiring public versions of the filings.
What happened
In RJ v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company, the parties asked to seal portions of exhibits supporting and opposing the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The exhibits included deposition transcripts that defendants said contained personal health information and confidential business information.
The court found compelling reasons to keep the identified information sealed, including possible financial and competitive harm from disclosure. It also found that the proposed redactions were limited to material that could properly be sealed.
Judge Davila granted the stipulated administrative motion to seal the specified portions of the exhibits and accepted the proposed redactions. The parties were ordered to file public versions of the class-certification filings and exhibits within 10 days.
The detailed version
- RJ v. Cigna Behavioral Health, Inc. · No. 5:20-cv-02255
- Edward Davila
- Jan. 30, 2024
Background
The court had previously ruled on requests to seal exhibits connected to plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. In an earlier order, it denied without prejudice requests to seal certain exhibits in full. After additional sealing requests, the court granted some requests and again denied without prejudice requests concerning Motion Exhibits 3, 5, 15, 17, and 30, and Reply Exhibits 9, 10, and 13.
Plaintiffs then filed a stipulated administrative motion to seal portions of those exhibits. Defendants had designated each exhibit as confidential. The exhibits consisted of deposition transcripts of defendants’ fact and expert witnesses. Defendants asserted that the transcripts contained personal health information and confidential and proprietary information whose disclosure could cause financial and competitive harm.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the standard requiring compelling reasons to seal the information. It found that compelling reasons existed because the materials included confidential information, including information that could harm a litigant’s competitive strategy or disclose sensitive personal information. The court also reviewed the proposed redactions and found that the requests were narrowly tailored to cover only material that could properly be sealed.
Ruling
The court granted the parties’ stipulated administrative motion to seal portions of Motion Exhibits 3, 5, 15, 17, and 30 and Reply Exhibits 9, 10, and 13. It accepted the parties’ proposed redactions. The court also directed the parties to file public versions of plaintiffs’ class-certification motion and all exhibits, as well as defendants’ opposition and plaintiffs’ reply, within 10 days after entry of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.