Valentini v. Group Health Incorporated

Background

Defendants CareCore National LLC doing business as eviCore, the entity named in the complaint as Group Health Incorporated and now formally identified as EmblemHealth Plan, Inc., and Emblem Health, Inc. asked for permission to file certain exhibits and references to those exhibits under seal in connection with their motions to dismiss. They initially sought to seal the GHI Comprehensive Benefits Plan and Kathleen Valentini’s medical records. Defendants later asked to withdraw the request concerning the benefits plan.

Plaintiffs opposed the sealing request and argued that because the complaint placed Valentini’s health information at issue, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) did not prevent disclosure. Plaintiffs also asserted that the complaint waived their privacy protections and that they did not object to including the protected health information in defendants’ filings. Defendants responded that they were not comfortable concluding that the complaint knowingly waived those rights.

Legal standard

The court explained that HIPAA and its implementing regulations generally restrict disclosure of protected health information, subject to specified exceptions. The court noted that courts in the circuit use two approaches when considering whether to seal medical records: some hold that HIPAA-protected information is not subject to a common-law or First Amendment right of access, while others apply the balancing test from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.

Under the Lugosch approach, documents filed in connection with a motion to dismiss may be “judicial documents,” meaning documents relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. Judicial documents carry a presumption of public access. That presumption may be overcome when specific findings show that sealing is necessary to protect more important interests and is narrowly tailored to those interests.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected plaintiffs’ reliance on cases stating that a plaintiff who puts health information at issue cannot prevent an opposing party from obtaining relevant records. The court distinguished obtaining records from placing those records on the public docket. It explained that pretrial information is not automatically a public part of a civil trial and that courts regularly seal medical records protected by HIPAA.

The court also rejected the assertion that filing the complaint automatically waived all privacy rights. It found that plaintiffs had provided no support for the claim that they had properly waived their confidentiality rights in a way that would allow defendants to publicly file the records without violating HIPAA. The court further stated that filing a complaint does not absolutely waive a person’s privacy rights.

Although the medical records and references to them were judicial documents with at least some presumption of public access, the court found that plaintiffs’ privacy interests and defendants’ legal obligations under HIPAA outweighed that presumption at that time. The court noted that plaintiffs were not asking defendants to disclose information; they were opposing defendants’ efforts to comply with their legal obligations.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ request to withdraw their motion to seal the GHI Comprehensive Benefits Plan. It also granted defendants’ motion to seal Valentini’s confidential health records and references to those records in their motions to dismiss. The court expressly stated that the order did not address plaintiffs’ right to disclose their own personal medical records in their own motion practice. The Clerk was directed to close the motions at docket numbers 16 and 28.