BCBSM, Inc. v. GS Labs, LLC
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:22-cv-00513
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In BCBSM, Inc. v. GS Labs, Judge Foster granted the parties’ motions to keep specified documents sealed because they were unlikely to matter to the court’s decision.
BCBSM, Inc. and GS Labs, LLC, whose specified court filings will remain under seal unless the court later reopens the ruling and orders some material unsealed.
What happened
In BCBSM, Inc. v. GS Labs, LLC, the parties jointly asked the court to continue sealing documents filed with their motions to amend the pleadings. The documents contained confidential business information about GS Labs’ operations, employees, and patients, and about BCBSM’s self-insured plans.
The court found that the materials were unlikely to play a role in the court’s decision because the parties had reported reaching a settlement in principle. It found good cause to keep the documents sealed and directed the clerk to keep the listed filings under seal.
Judge Dulce J. Foster granted the joint motions. The court stated that it could later reopen the ruling and order documents unsealed if the settlement was not finalized and the documents became significant to a decision.
The detailed version
- BCBSM, Inc. v. GS Labs, LLC · No. 0:22-cv-00513
- Eric Tostrud
- July 7, 2023
Background
BCBSM, Inc., doing business as Blue Cross and Shield of Minnesota, sued GS Labs, LLC. The court considered the parties’ joint motions to continue sealing documents filed in connection with BCBSM’s motion to amend its complaint and GS Labs’ motion for leave to amend its first amended answer and counterclaims.
The parties asked to keep two groups of filings under seal. One group contained confidential and proprietary information about GS Labs’ operations, employees, and patients. The other group contained confidential and proprietary information about the terms and operations of BCBSM’s self-insured plans.
Legal standard
The court explained that civil-case documents may be sealed only under a statute or rule, or with the court’s permission. Judicial records generally carry a common-law right of public access, but that right is not absolute. Courts balance public access against legitimate interests in confidentiality, considering the role the materials play in the exercise of federal judicial power and their value to people monitoring the federal courts.
Court’s reasoning
The documents had been filed with pending motions to amend the pleadings. Those motions were scheduled for a hearing, but the parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle. As a result, the court found it unlikely that the documents would play any role in the district judge’s exercise of federal judicial power. After reviewing the documents, the court found no other value to people monitoring the federal courts and found good cause to grant the motions.
The court cautioned that if the settlement was not finalized and any part of the documents became significant to a decision by the district judge, it could reopen the ruling and order that part unsealed.
Disposition
The court granted the parties’ joint motions for continued sealing. It directed the clerk to keep ECF Nos. 92, 117, 117-1 through 117-25 under seal, as listed in the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.