RJ v. Cigna Behavioral Health, Inc.

Background

Plaintiffs and defendants Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company and MultiPlan, Inc. disputed whether portions of three documents should remain designated as confidential under the stipulated protective order: Laurence Baker’s expert report, Sean Crandell’s declaration, and the new Research & Planning Consultants, LP expert report. The documents had been filed in support of class-certification briefing.

Defendants argued that the “good cause” standard for protecting discovery materials applied. Plaintiffs argued that, because the documents had been filed with the court, defendants had to meet the higher “compelling reasons” standard used for sealing judicial records. The court noted that the presiding judge had separately addressed whether the documents could be filed under seal, while this order resolved the disputed confidentiality designations for discovery purposes.

Legal standard

The court held that the applicable standard depends on how documents are being used. Rule 26(c) and the protective order govern discovery materials. Under Rule 26(c), the party seeking protection must show specific harm or prejudice that would result from disclosure. The court also applied the framework requiring consideration of particularized harm and a balancing of public and private interests, including privacy, embarrassment, public health and safety, fairness, efficiency, and the public importance of the underlying dispute.

The court found that disclosure of some categories of information—particularly personal health information, claim-specific information, and details about pricing methods and business operations—could cause particularized harm. Privacy and potential embarrassment favored defendants. Other factors were neutral, while the public interest in the underlying action and some of the information favored plaintiffs.

Rulings on the documents

For the Baker Report, the court kept confidential portions that disclosed personal health information, claim-specific information, details of Cigna’s pricing methodology and arrangements with plan clients, and details of Cigna’s operations in different markets. It found other portions not confidential when they provided only general descriptions or repeated information disclosed publicly during the class-certification hearing.

For the Crandell Declaration, the court found general descriptions of MultiPlan’s Viant business and methodology not confidential. It kept confidential portions that disclosed details of data collection, Viant’s methodology, MultiPlan’s operations and claims processing, and a detailed critique of the RPC Report filed under seal.

For the New RPC Report, the court kept confidential portions referring to protected material in the Crandell Declaration and portions disclosing details of Viant’s pricing methodology, Cigna’s operations, and Cigna’s claims and dispute data. It found general descriptions of the methodology, data sources, and expert opinions not confidential.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion in part and denied it in part. It directed the parties to confer about efficient ways to document the confidentiality designations resulting from the order for discovery and, if appropriate, their class-certification submissions.

The opinion is signed by Virginia K. Demarchi, United States Magistrate Judge.