United States of America ex rel. June Raffington v. Bon Secours Health System
United States of America ex rel. June Raffington v. Bon Secours Health System, inc.
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:10-cv-09650
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In United States ex rel. Raffington v. Bon Secours Health System, Inc., Judge Gorenstein granted defendants’ request to file an unredacted patient-information exhibit under seal.
The defendants, opposing counsel, and patients whose protected health information appeared in the exhibit.
What happened
In United States ex rel. Raffington v. Bon Secours Health System, Inc., the defendants asked to file an unredacted 307-page exhibit under seal. The exhibit contained patients’ protected health information.
The defendants said that nearly every page required extensive redactions and that privacy laws and third-party privacy interests supported sealing the unredacted exhibit. They also said they had provided an unredacted copy to opposing counsel under a protective order.
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein granted the application and ordered the requested sealing. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims in the case.
The detailed version
- United States of America ex rel. June Raffington v. Bon Secours Health System · No. 1:10-cv-09650
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Oct. 21, 2020
Background
The defendants were Bon Secours Health System, Inc., Bon Secours New York Health System, and Schervier Long Term Home Health Care Program. They asked the court for permission to file an unredacted version of Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of David Fischer under seal.
Request and reasons
The defendants stated that the exhibit was 307 pages long and that every page except the cover page contained patients’ protected health information. They said that extensive redactions would be required and relied on privacy obligations under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and on the protection of innocent third parties’ privacy interests.
Ruling
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein granted the application and ordered the sealing. The ruling concerned only the filing of the unredacted exhibit; the opinion does not address the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.