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

Filing 346

ORDER REGARDING OUTSTANDING SEALING ISSUES re 332 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, 308 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, 302 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, and 320 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 08/25/2015. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2015)

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
12
13
14

v.

Case No. 12-cv-05847-WHO
ORDER REGARDING OUTSTANDING
SEALING ISSUES
Re: Dkt. Nos. 302-1, 308-2, 308-7, 320, 332

AETNA, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
On August 12, 2015, this case was dismissed with prejudice following settlement. Dkt.
No. 345. This order resolves several outstanding sealing issues.
1. On June 19, 2015, I issued an order regarding, among other things, Quest’s motion to

15

seal portions of its brief in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and various

16

attachments thereto. Dkt. No. 309. I denied the motion without prejudice with respect to the

17

Regan deposition transcript, the Riedel deposition transcript, and those portions of the Thomas

18

report not specifically identified in the proposed order submitted by Quest. Id. at 13-14. I gave

19

plaintiffs (who had designated the materials as confidential) seven days to submit an amended

20

declaration in support of sealing. Id. Plaintiffs did not submit an amended declaration.

21

Accordingly, within seven days of the date of this order, Quest shall file unsealed versions of

22

the Regan and Riedel deposition transcripts, and a version of the Thomas report with only

23

those portions specifically identified in the proposed order submitted by Quest redacted.

24

2. In the same June 19, 2015 order, I denied with prejudice plaintiffs’ motion to seal

25

(1) the reply expert report of Greg Regan except for those portions specifically identified in the

26

declaration submitted by Quest, (2) excerpts from the Regan deposition transcript, (3) portions of

27

plaintiffs’ reply brief in support of their motion for summary judgment, except for those portions

28

specifically identified in the declarations submitted by Aetna and Quest. Dkt. No. 309 at 14. I gave

1

plaintiffs seven days to file properly redacted versions of these documents. Id. Plaintiffs did not do

2

so. Plaintiffs shall file properly redacted versions of the documents within seven days of the date

3

of this order.

4

3. In the same June 19, 2015 order, I also denied without prejudice Quest’s motion to seal its

5

“Request for Additional Subject to be Addressed at the June 10, 2015 Hearing” and gave plaintiffs

6

(who had designated the underlying information as confidential) seven days to submit a declaration in

7

support of sealing. Id. at 15 n.5. Plaintiffs did not do so. Accordingly, the Clerk shall UNSEAL the

8

document, located at docket number 302-1.
4. On June 17, 2015, Quest moved to seal portions of its “Brief Regarding Plaintiffs

10

Communications with Fair Laboratory Practices Associates” and one of the attached exhibits. Dkt.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

No. 308. The only stated basis for sealing was that plaintiffs had designated the underlying

12

information as confidential, but plaintiffs did not submit a declaration in support of sealing.

13

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, and the Clerk shall UNSEAL the

14

documents, located at docket numbers 308-2 and 308-7.

15

5. On July 2, 2015, Quest moved to seal all or portions of seven exhibits attached to its

16

motions in limine. Dkt. No. 320. Quest moved to seal three of the exhibits on its own behalf and four

17

of the exhibits on plaintiffs’ behalf. Id. Plaintiffs did not file a declaration in support of sealing. This

18

motion is GRANTED with respect to the exhibits (or portions thereof) specifically identified in the

19

proposed order submitted by Quest, located at docket number 320-1. It is DENIED WITH

20

PREJUDICE with respect to all other documents sought to be sealed. Quest shall file properly

21

redacted versions of the documents within seven days of the date of this order.

22

6. On July 10, 2015, plaintiffs moved to seal portions of its brief in opposition to Quest’s

23

motions in limine and all or portions of several attached exhibits. Dkt. No. 332. The only stated basis

24

for sealing was that Quest or third-parties had designated the underlying information as confidential.

25

Id. On July 14, 2015, Aetna filed a declaration in support of sealing Exhibit 8 to plaintiffs’ opposition

26

brief. Dkt. No. 334. On the same date, Quest filed a declaration in support of sealing all or portions of

27

Exhibits 2 and 8-11. Dkt. No. 335. This motion is GRANTED with respect to Exhibits 2 and 8-11 or

28

the portions thereof specifically identified in the proposed order submitted by Quest, located at docket

2

1

number 335-1. It is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE with respect to all other documents sought to be

2

sealed. Plaintiffs shall file properly redacted versions of the documents within seven days of the

3

date of this order.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 25, 2015
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

8
9
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
3