Southeastern Emergency Physicians LLC v. Arkansas Health & Wellness Health Plan Inc

Filing 79

ORDER granting 63 motion for leave to file under seal their response in opposition to SEP's motion for leave to file second amended complaint; granting 64 motion to extend time to respond to SEP's motion for leave to file second amended complaint; directing the Clerk to accept for filing under seal defendants' response in opposition to SEP's motion for leave to file second amended complaint; and granting 73 SEP's motion for leave to file under seal the reply. Defendants shall have up to and including 6/26/2019, to file their response in opposition to SEP's motion for leave to file second amended complaint. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 6/21/2019. (jbh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
SOUTHEASTERN EMERGENCY
PHYSICIANS LLC
v.

PLAINTIFF

Case No. 4:17-cv-00492-KGB

ARKANSAS HEALTH &
WELLNESS HEALTH PLAN, INC., et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Before the Court are two motions by defendants Arkansas Health & Wellness Health Plan,
Inc. (“Arkansas Health Plan”) and Celtic Insurance Company d/b/a Arkansas Health & Wellness
Insurance Company (“Celtic”): (1) a motion for leave to file under seal defendants’ response in
opposition to plaintiff Southeastern Emergency Physicians, LLC’s (“SEP”) motion for leave to
file second amended complaint and (2) an unopposed motion to extend time to respond to SEP’s
motion for leave to file second amended complaint (Dkt. Nos. 63, 64). For the reasons set forth
below, the Court grants both motions (Dkt. Nos. 63, 64). Also before the Court is SEP’s motion
for leave to file under seal reply to response to motion for leave to file second amended complaint
(Dkt. No. 73).
The Court previously granted SEP leave to file under seal its motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 59). On May 13, 2019, SEP filed its motion for leave to file
a second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 60). Defendants now argue that their response to SEP’s
motion for leave to file a second amended complaint should be sealed because it will reference
documents and other information that have been designated as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only and/or
Confidential Information” under the protective Order (Dkt. No. 63, ¶ 3). Defendants further argue
that their response cannot be meaningfully redacted. Defendants also seek an unopposed extension

of time to file their response in opposition to SEP’s motion for leave to file second amended
complaint (Dkt. No. 64).
For good cause shown, the Court grants defendants’ motion for leave to file under seal their
response in opposition to SEP’s motion for leave to file second amended complaint and their
motion to extend time to respond to SEP’s motion for leave to file second amended complaint
(Dkt. Nos. 63, 64). The Clerk of Court is instructed to accept for filing under seal defendants’
response in opposition to SEP’s motion for leave to file second amended complaint. Defendants
shall have up to and including June 26, 2019, to file their response in opposition to SEP’s motion
for leave to file second amended complaint. The Court grants SEP’s motion for leave to file under
seal the reply (Dkt. No. 73). The other pending motions remain under advisement.
It is so ordered this the 21st day of June 2019.

KRISTINE G. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

2