Rheumatology Diagnostics Laboratory, Inc et al v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance Company

Filing 249

ORDER REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND EXHIBITS by Hon. William H. Orrick denying 215 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. QDI shall file an amended sealing motion on or before March 3, 2015 narrowing its sealing requests, specifically identifying the documents or portions of documents it seeks to have sealed, and articulating specific facts demonstrating compelling reasons for sealing. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RHEUMATOLOGY DIAGNOSTICS
LABORATORY, INC, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.
AETNA, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-05847-WHO
ORDER REGARDING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
EXHIBITS
Re: Dkt. No. 215

12
On January 16, 2015, defendants Quest Diagnostics Incorporated and Quest Diagnostics
13

Clinical Laboratories Incorporated (collectively, “QDI”) filed an administrative motion to file

14
under seal dozens of portions of their motion for summary judgment, as well as several
15
declarations and exhibits submitted in support of the motion. Dkt. No. 215.
16

The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. QDI’s sealing requests are overbroad.

17
For example, QDI seeks to seal the entirety of the declarations of Robert Moverley and Gary
18
McCabe and all exhibits attached to these exhibits. A party seeking to seal material related to a
19

dispositive motion must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings,”

20
identifying the particular interests favoring secrecy and showing how those interests outweigh the
21

“strong presumption” favoring disclosure. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,

22
1178-81 (9th Cir. 2006). In general, compelling reasons sufficient to justify sealing exist when the
23
24

materials may “become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as . . . to gratify private spite,
promote public scandal, . . . or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179. But “[t]he mere fact that the

25
production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further
26

litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. QDI has not articulated

27
specific facts demonstrating compelling reasons for sealing the entirety of each of the items it
28

1
2

seeks to file under seal.
Accordingly, QDI’s sealing motion, Dkt. No. 215, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

3

QDI shall file an amended sealing motion on or before March 3, 2015 narrowing its sealing

4

requests, specifically identifying the documents or portions of documents it seeks to have sealed,

5

and articulating specific facts demonstrating compelling reasons for sealing.

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 24, 2015
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2