M. v. United Healthcare Insurance
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-06958
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In J.M. and M.M. v. United Healthcare Insurance, Judge Schofield denied redaction motions without prejudice but granted sealing of the entire Administrative Record.
J.M., M.M., the defendants, and members of the public seeking access to the court record. The entire Administrative Record remains sealed, while the requested redactions were denied without prejudice and could be renewed by October 13, 2023.
What happened
In J.M. and M.M. v. United Healthcare Insurance, the parties asked the court to redact parts of their summary-judgment filings and to seal the entire Administrative Record. The requested redactions concerned references to or excerpts from the Milliman Care Guidelines, while the Administrative Record contained sensitive personal and medical information about M.M. and his family.
The court said filings submitted for consideration on summary judgment are judicial records with a strong presumption of public access. It found that the sensitive medical information justified sealing the entire Administrative Record. But the defendants did not provide enough information to show that limited excerpts from the Milliman Care Guidelines would cause competitive harm that outweighed public access.
Judge Schofield denied all motions to redact without prejudice to renewal and granted the motion to seal the entire Administrative Record. Documents already filed under seal were to remain sealed temporarily, and the parties were ordered by October 13, 2023, either to file renewed motions or to file unredacted versions publicly.
The detailed version
- M. v. United Healthcare Insurance · No. 1:21-cv-06958
- Lorna Schofield
- Sept. 29, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs moved to redact portions of their statement of undisputed material facts and their motion for summary judgment. The defendants separately moved to redact portions of their summary-judgment papers and related factual submissions, and to seal the entire Administrative Record. The defendants later moved to redact portions of their reply memorandum. Neither side, and no third party, opposed the other side’s redaction motions.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the three-part test governing requests to seal judicial documents. First, it determined whether the material was a judicial document subject to public access. Second, it assessed the strength of the public-access presumption. Third, it balanced that presumption against competing interests, including privacy and confidentiality. The party seeking secrecy bears the burden of showing that a higher value justifies restricting access.
The court held that all six categories of documents at issue were judicial documents. Because they were submitted in connection with summary-judgment motions, they carried the strongest level of public-access protection. The court nevertheless found that the Administrative Record contained highly sensitive personal and medical information about M.M. and his family. That privacy interest justified sealing the entire Administrative Record.
The other requested redactions involved references to or excerpts from the Milliman Care Guidelines, which are used to evaluate claims for payment of medical services. The defendants argued that their agreement with the guidelines’ provider required confidentiality. The court found that the parties had not adequately explained why the excerpts were commercially or otherwise sensitive. The defendants also did not explain how public access to the limited excerpts would cause competitive harm that outweighed public access, and they did not submit affidavits from the guidelines’ provider establishing their proprietary nature.
Order
The court ordered that all motions to redact were DENIED without prejudice to renewal. The motion to seal the entire Administrative Record was GRANTED. Documents already filed under seal were to remain sealed at that time. By October 13, 2023, the parties were required either to file renewed motions or to file unredacted versions of the documents on the public docket. The Clerk was directed to close the motions at docket entries 56, 66, and 75.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.