Cave Consulting Group, Inc. v. OptumInsight, Inc.,

Filing 409

ORDER by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero regarding 380 383 385 387 390 396 Administrative Motions to File Under Seal. The parties shall file certain documents in the public record as stated herein no later than April 13, 2020. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2020)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
CAVE CONSULTING GROUP, INC.,

7

Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

OPTUMINSIGHT, INC.,

10

ORDER REGARDING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 380, 383, 385, 387, 390, 396

Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 15-cv-03424-JCS

Plaintiff Cave Consulting Group, Inc. (“CCGroup”) and Defendant OptumInsight, Inc.

12
13

filed several administrative motions to file documents under seal in relation to motions previously

14

adjudicated. Although the parties have now reached a settlement in principle, the Court

15

nevertheless reviews the pending motions to seal to ensure that the public record of this action is

16

complete.
OptumInsight’s November 1, 2019 administrative motion (dkt. 380) is GRANTED for the

17
18

reasons stated therein.
OptumInsight’s administrative motion filed as docket entry 383 is a response to the Court’s

19
20

November 4, 2019 order (dkt. 382) denying in part a motion to seal filed by CCGroup because

21

OptumInsight had not filed a responsive declaration to support its designation of documents as

22

confidential. OptumInsight’s motion at docket entry 383 is GRANTED as to all documents

23

addressed therein, including sealing in full exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 15, 16, 17, 19, 23, 24, 25, 29,

24

30, 31, 32, 33, and 42;1 OptumInsight’s redactions to exhibits 7, 10, 11, 13, 26, 28, 40, and 43; and

25

CCGroup’s redactions to its brief. OptumInsight is ORDERED to file redacted versions of

26

exhibits 7, 10, 11, 13, 26, 28, 40, and 43 in the public record no later than April 13, 2020.

27
28

1

OptumInsight also requests sealing of exhibit 27, but the Court already granted CCGroup’s
motion to seal that exhibit.

1

OptumInsight does not seek sealing of exhibits 12, 20, or 21, and the Court’s previous order

2

denying CCGroup’s motion to seal those documents therefore stands. CCGroup is ORDERED to

3

file those three documents in the public record no later than April 13, 2020.

4

On November 15, 2019, CCGroup filed an administrative motion (dkt 385) to seal redacted

5

portions of an opposition brief, and to seal in full a fax cover sheet included as an exhibit in

6

support of that brief, based on OptumInsight’s designations of confidentiality. OptumInsight filed

7

a responsive declaration identifying reasons for sealing the proposed redactions but declining to

8

pursue sealing of the fax cover sheet. See dkt. 386. CCGroup’s motion is GRANTED as to the

9

redactions to its brief but DENIED as to the fax cover sheet. CCGroup is ORDERED to file the

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

fax cover sheet in the public record no later than April 13, 2020.
OptumInsight’s November 20, 2019 administrative motion to seal (dkt. 387) is GRANTED

12

in full: as to the exhibit D, exhibit E, and the redactions to OptumInsight’s brief for the reasons

13

stated in the administrative motion and supporting declarations, and as to exhibits B, C, F, and G

14

for the reasons stated in CCGroup’s responsive declaration filed as docket entry 392.

15

OptumInsight’s November 25, 2019 administrative motion to seal (dkt. 390) is GRANTED

16

in full: as to exhibits 5 through 7 for the reasons stated in the administrative motion and supporting

17

declarations, and as to exhibits 2 through 4 for the reasons stated in CCGroup’s responsive

18

declaration filed as docket entry 393.

19

CCGroup’s December 6, 2019 administrative motion (dkt. 396) to seal redacted portions of

20

a reply brief is GRANTED IN PART for the reasons stated in OptumInsight’s responsive

21

declaration (dkt. 397). OptumInsight concedes that some of the proposed redactions relate to

22

information that it previously consented to filing in the public record. The parties are ORDERED

23

to confer via email, telephone, or other remote means and confirm agreement on the portions of

24

the brief that need not be sealed no later than April 9, 2020. CCGroup is ORDERED to file a

25

revised redacted version of the reply brief in the public record no later than April 13, 2020.

26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 6, 2020

______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge
2