United States of America v. McKesson Corporation
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:15-cv-00903
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hart v. McKesson, Judge Abrams granted provisional redaction of the Second Amended Complaint and ordered the parties to justify continued sealing.
Adam Hart and McKesson Corporation, whose filings and confidentiality interests were affected by the provisional sealing order and the requirement to explain any continued sealing.
What happened
In United States ex rel. Hart v. McKesson Corp., Relator Adam Hart asked to file his Second Amended Complaint in redacted form under a protective order. The redactions covered information McKesson had designated confidential.
McKesson did not object to the complaint being filed provisionally under seal. The request concerned only temporary sealing while the court considered whether the information should remain unavailable to the public.
Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the application. She ordered the parties to submit, by June 22, 2022, a letter explaining why the redacted portions should remain sealed in light of the public’s presumptive right of access. She also ordered Hart to submit a redline comparing the First and Second Amended Complaints.
The detailed version
- United States of America v. McKesson Corporation · No. 1:15-cv-00903
- Ronnie Abrams
- June 9, 2022
Background
Adam Hart, identified as the relator and qui tam plaintiff, asked the court to allow portions of his Second Amended Complaint to be filed provisionally under seal with selected-party access. The request relied on a protective order in the case. Hart’s lawyers said the proposed redactions concerned information from documents that McKesson Corporation had designated as confidential.
The letter stated that the protective order placed the burden on McKesson, as the designating party, to persuade the court that the information should remain permanently sealed. McKesson had informed Hart that it did not object to the provisional filing of the redacted portions.
Court’s Action
Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the application. The court did not make a final ruling that the redacted information should remain sealed. Instead, it ordered the parties, no later than June 22, 2022, to submit a letter explaining why continued sealing would be justified in light of the public’s presumptive right of access. The court also ordered Hart to submit a redline comparing the First and Second Amended Complaints.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.