Emergency Physician Services of New York v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc.
- John Koeltl
- 1:20-cv-09183
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Emergency Physician Services v. UnitedHealth Group: Judge Koeltl granted defendants’ request to seal two exhibits containing sensitive health and business information.
The defendants, the plaintiffs whose disputed-claims lists were at issue, and members of the public seeking access to the exhibits were affected. The sealed materials contained sensitive health information and confidential business and financial information.
What happened
In Emergency Physician Services of New York v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., the defendants asked to file Exhibits 16 and 17 under seal. The exhibits were plaintiffs’ disputed-claims lists and were submitted with defendants’ summary-judgment materials. The plaintiffs did not oppose the request.
The exhibits contained sensitive personal and health information, as well as business and financial information about reimbursement rates. The defendants argued that public disclosure could violate privacy protections and harm their competitive position in negotiations. The request was made under the case’s protective order.
The court granted the application. Judge Koeltl accepted the stated grounds for sealing, including the privacy interests associated with health information and the risk of competitive harm from disclosure of confidential business information.
The detailed version
- Emergency Physician Services of New York v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-09183
- John Koeltl
- Sept. 2, 2022
Background
The defendants—UnitedHealth Group, Inc., United HealthCare Services, Inc., UMR, Inc., UnitedHealthcare Service LLC, UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company, and Oxford Health Plans LLC—requested permission to file Exhibits 16 and 17 under seal. The exhibits were identified as plaintiffs’ disputed-claims lists, produced on November 5, 2021, and June 30, 2022. They were designated confidential under the protective order in the case. The defendants submitted the request in connection with their summary-judgment materials, and the plaintiffs did not oppose it.
Reasoning
The application explained that the exhibits contained confidential information, including individually identifiable health information and protected health information. It also stated that the exhibits contained sensitive business and financial information concerning the average reimbursement amounts paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs as out-of-network emergency-care providers. According to the application, disclosure could give other insurers and provider groups information useful in negotiating payment rates and could weaken the defendants’ bargaining position.
The court’s order relied on the principle that documents relevant to judicial proceedings generally receive a presumption of public access, but that presumption must be balanced against competing considerations. Privacy interests and the risk of competitive injury can justify sealing confidential health and business information. The protective order also required a party seeking to file unredacted confidential or attorneys’-eyes-only information to ask the court for permission to file it under seal, unless the producing party agreed otherwise.
Ruling
The court granted the application to file Exhibits 16 and 17 under seal. Judge John G. Koeltl’s order addressed the filing of these exhibits and did not decide the underlying claims or the defendants’ summary-judgment motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.