Meyers v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc

Filing 83

Order by Judge Lucy H. Koh Granting in Part, Denying in Part With Prejudice, and Denying in Part Without Prejudice 82 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.(lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2019)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 CAROL MEYERS, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 Case No. 17-CV-04946-LHK ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART WITH PREJUDICE, AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC, Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 82 17 18 On December 11, 2018, the Court denied without prejudice the parties’ numerous motions 19 to seal and instructed the parties’ on how to properly renew their requests. ECF No. 78. Before the 20 Court is a joint administrative motion to file confidential information under seal filed by Plaintiff 21 Carol Meyers and Defendant Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (“Kaiser”) on December 20, 22 2018. ECF No. 82 (“Mot.”). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS in part, DENIES in 23 part with prejudice, and DENIES in part without prejudice the instant motion to seal. 24 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 25 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 26 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 27 28 1 Case No. 17-CV-04946-LHK ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART WITH PREJUDICE, AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 1 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Thus, when considering a sealing request, “a strong presumption in 2 favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 3 Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially 4 related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 5 1099 (9th Cir. 2016), bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons 6 supported by specific factual findings” that outweigh the general history of access and the public 7 policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006). Compelling reasons 8 justifying the sealing of court records generally exist “when such ‘court files might have become a 9 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s 12 embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the 13 court to seal its records.” Id. 14 Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits 15 of a case,” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 16 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court 17 records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or 18 only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 19 Parties moving to seal records attached to motions unrelated or only tangentially related to the 20 merits of a case must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of 21 Civil Procedure. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098–99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80. The 22 “good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will 23 result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th 24 Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 25 examples or articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 26 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 27 28 2 Case No. 17-CV-04946-LHK ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART WITH PREJUDICE, AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 1 In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request 3 that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged, protectable as a trade secret or 4 otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). “The request must be narrowly 5 tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Id. 6 Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a “declaration 7 establishing that the document sought to be filed under seal, or portions thereof, are sealable,” a 8 “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material,” and a proposed order 9 that “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as 10 an “unredacted version of the document” that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 2 the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Id. 12 The first question before the Court is whether the instant motions to seal are subject to the 13 good cause or compelling reasons standard. Here, the briefing and exhibits that the parties seek to 14 seal are for purposes of a bench trial. As such, the documents, by definition, have more than a 15 tangential relation to the merits of the case, and therefore the “compelling reasons” standard 16 applies. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101; see, e.g., Federal Trade Commission v. 17 DIRECTV, Inc., No. 15-cv-1129-HSG, 2017 WL 840379, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2017) (applying 18 “compelling reasons” standard to trial exhibits in bench trial). 19 The Court now turns to the substance of the instant joint sealing motion. Specifically, the 20 parties seek to seal (1) initial filings by the parties that included the name of Plaintiff’s minor 21 daughter, (2) portions of Defendant Kaiser’s opening and responsive trial brief, and (3) exhibits 22 filed in connection with the bench trial. See Mot. The Court addresses each in turn below. 23 First, the Court agrees that compelling reasons exist to seal the parties’ filings that included 24 the name of the Plaintiff’s minor daughter. On November 26, 2018, the Court held that Federal 25 Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a) requires that the minor’s name be redacted in all filings with the 26 Court and that the parties had failed to comply with Rule 5.2(a) because their filings included the 27 28 3 Case No. 17-CV-04946-LHK ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART WITH PREJUDICE, AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 1 minor’s name. ECF No. 64 (“November 26, 2018”). In light of this, the Court locked all of the 2 parties’ improper filings and ordered the parties to “refile using only the minor’s initials.” See id. 3 Since then, the parties have filed corrected versions of their original filings without the Plaintiff’s 4 minor daughter’s name. The Court agrees with the parties that compelling reasons exist to 5 continue to seal the parties’ original filings containing the minor’s name from public view. However, the Court finds that Kaiser failed to comply with the Court’s November 26, 2018 6 7 Order when Kaiser filed its corrected documents. The Court had ordered the parties to “refile 8 using only the minor’s initials.” ECF No. 64. Despite the Court’s specific instructions, Kaiser 9 refiled and merely blacked out the name of the minor. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 66, 68. Therefore, Kaiser is ordered to refile its documents again, this time editing the text of the documents so that 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 they include the minor’s initials. Second, Kaiser seeks to seal portions of its opening and responsive trial brief (refiled at 12 13 ECF Nos. 66 and 68)1 that Kaiser argues contain “confidential information regarding mental 14 health treatment provided to a minor child.” See Mot. at 6–7. The Court DENIES Kaiser’s request 15 without prejudice for two reasons. First, the portions of the opening and responsive trial brief that 16 Kaiser seeks to seal are not narrowly tailored as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(d) because the 17 requested redactions include information, for instance, about the claim reimbursement and appeals 18 process as well the name of Elevations RTC/Seven Stars, that has already been publicly disclosed 19 in this litigation in the Plaintiff’s trial brief and the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. 20 See ECF Nos. 74, 76. Second, in making its request, Kaiser failed to comply with the Court’s 21 previous sealing order that instructed that the renewed sealing request should include a chart that 22 “includes a row for each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” ECF No. 78 at 4 23 (emphasis added), because the joint motion to seal’s chart does not provide a specific labeling of 24 25 26 27 28 1 The joint motion to seal refers to the original unredacted filings (ECF Nos. 40-4 and 47-4) when making the request to redact portions of Kaiser’s opening and responsive brief, which are corrected and available at ECF Nos. 66 and 68. See Mot. at 6–7. Therefore, to be accurate, the Court refers to the request as pertaining to ECF Nos. 66 and 68 in this paragraph and in the chart below. 4 Case No. 17-CV-04946-LHK ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART WITH PREJUDICE, AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 1 the line or page numbers that Kaiser seeks to seal. Kaiser also failed to attach an “unredacted 2 version of the document” that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of 3 the document that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Id. at 3 (quoting Civ. L. R. 79- 4 5(d)). Because the Court denies Kaiser’s request without prejudice, Kaiser may tailor and renew 5 its request in a joint motion to seal. The parties shall file any joint motion to seal within seven 6 days of this Order. The joint motion to seal shall comply with the instant order and the Court’s 7 December 12, 2018 sealing order. See ECF No. 78. 8 9 Third, of the exhibits that were filed in connection with the bench trial, the Court finds that the exhibits fall into three different categories. The first category of exhibits consists of the minor’s medical records and information related specifically to the minor’s medical history and 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 treatment. The Court agrees that compelling reasons exist to seal the personal and medical 12 information of the minor in this case. This information is sealable because of the strong interest in 13 “preserv[ing] privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly personal nature.” Jane Roes 1-2 v. SFBSC 14 Mgmt LLC, 77 F. Supp. 3d 990, 993 (N.D. Cal. 2015); see also Hunt v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 2015 U.S. 15 Dist. LEXIS 122228, 2015 WL 5355398, *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2015) (holding that plaintiff’s 16 “interest in preserving the privacy of her sensitive mental health records” constituted a compelling 17 reason to seal those records). The personal information of the minor, including birth year and 18 home address, is also justified in order to “protect [the minor’s] privacy interest[s] and to prevent 19 exposure to harm or identify theft.” Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. 20 LEXIS 84000, 2007 WL 3232267, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2007). 21 The second category of exhibits have to do with benefits claims and appeals 22 correspondence. The Court finds specifically as to Kaiser’s letters explaining the denial of benefits 23 and Kaiser’s records regarding the status of the benefits claims that the presumption favoring 24 disclosure of these documents is not outweighed by compelling reasons. The subject matter of 25 Kaiser’s denial of benefits and Plaintiff’s appeal is directly at issue in this lawsuit and the minor’s 26 name and personal information (such as birth year and home address) can easily be redacted from 27 28 5 Case No. 17-CV-04946-LHK ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART WITH PREJUDICE, AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 1 these documents to protect the minor’s medical privacy rights. Compare Nursing Home Pension 2 Fund, 2007 WL 3232267, at *2 (discussing the protection of personal information, including birth 3 year and address). 4 As for the billing records, however, the Court agrees with the parties that these documents 5 cannot easily be redacted to protect the minor’s medical privacy rights and that sealing is 6 appropriate. The Court similarly seals Plaintiff’s level one appeals letter to Kaiser because it finds 7 that the document contains sensitive information about the minor’s personal and medical 8 information that cannot be easily redacted to protect the minor’s medical privacy rights. The third category of exhibits are miscellaneous documents that the parties have labeled in 10 their chart as documents regarding Plaintiff’s appeal that contain information such as a screenshot 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 of a web search (which is publicly accessible), a copy of Kaiser’s Plan (of which versions have 12 already been made public by the parties), and a complaint in a proceeding against Kaiser before 13 the Department of Managed Health Care of the State of California (which is a public document). 14 The Court finds that compelling reasons do not exist to seal these documents because these 15 documents are already public and do not pertain to the minor’s medical history and treatment. The 16 parties have not provided any other reason for sealing those documents. 17 18 19 20 21 Accordingly, with the Ninth Circuit’s sealing case law in mind, the Court rules on the instant motion as follows: Dkt. No./Bates Number(s) Page/Line ECF No. 1 Plaintiff’s Complaint (containing minor child’s name; refiled at ECF No. 72) Entire Document GRANTED. ECF No. 12 Defendant Kaiser’s Answer (containing minor child’s name; refiled at ECF No. 65) Entire Document GRANTED. ECF No. 32 Plaintiff’s Joint Discovery Letter Brief (containing minor child’s name; refiled at ECF No. 73) Entire Document GRANTED. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Court’s Ruling Document(s) Description 6 Case No. 17-CV-04946-LHK ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART WITH PREJUDICE, AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 1 ECF No. 39 Entire Document GRANTED. ECF No. 40-4 Defendant Kaiser’s Opening Trial Entire and ECF No. 41 Brief (containing minor child’s Document name; refiled at ECF No. 66) GRANTED. 2 3 4 Plaintiff’s Opening Trial Brief (containing minor child’s name; refiled at ECF No. 74) ECF No. 42 Defendant Kaiser’s Notice of Filing Administrative Record for Trial (containing minor child’s name; refiled at ECF No. 67) Entire Document GRANTED. ECF No. 45 Plaintiff’s Responsive Trial Brief (containing minor child’s name; refiled at ECF No. 75) Entire Document GRANTED. Entire Document GRANTED. 11 ECF No. 47-4 Defendant Kaiser’s Responsive and ECF No. 48 Trial Brief (containing minor child’s name; refiled at ECF No. 68) 12 ECF No. 50 Defendant Kaiser’s Motion Regarding the Scope of the Administrative Record at Trial (containing minor child’s name; refiled at ECF No. 69) Entire Document GRANTED. ECF No. 53 Defendant Kaiser’s Notice of Filing Exhibit 3 as Proposed Supplement to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (containing minor child’s name; refiled at ECF No. 70) Entire Document GRANTED. ECF No. 55 Defendant Kaiser’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion Regarding the Scope of the Administrative Record at Trial (containing minor child’s name; refiled at ECF No. 71) Entire Document GRANTED. ECF No. 66 Defendant Kaiser’s Corrected Opening Trial Brief Portions DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Pursuant to the Court’s instructions above, the parties may refile as a joint motion their request to seal information 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 Case No. 17-CV-04946-LHK ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART WITH PREJUDICE, AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL within seven days of this Order. 1 2 ECF No. 68 Defendant Kaiser’s Corrected Responsive Trial Brief Portions DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Pursuant to the Court’s instructions above, the parties may refile as a joint motion their request to seal information within seven days of this Order. ECF No. 40-5: K1226; K1202; K1203–21 Exhibit 3 to Defendant Kaiser’s Proposed Administrative Record (minor’s medical records) Entire Document GRANTED. ECF No. 40-5: K1190–1197; K1198–1201; K1227–34; K1222–25; K1235–38 Exhibit 3 to Defendant Kaiser’s Proposed Administrative Record (benefits claims and appeals correspondence) Entire Document DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, except for the name, address, and birthday of the minor. The benefits claims and appeals correspondence does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard. The parties shall refile and redact only the name, address, and birthday of the minor. ECF No. 40-6: K1260–71; K1262–66; K1240–47 Exhibit 4 to Defendant Kaiser’s Proposed Administrative Record (billing records) Entire Document GRANTED. ECF No. 40-6: K1248–55; K1256–59; K1261; K1267– 70 Exhibit 4 to Defendant Kaiser’s Proposed Administrative Record (benefits claims and appeals correspondence) Entire Document DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, except for the name, address, and birthday of the minor. The benefits claims and appeals correspondence does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard. The parties shall refile and redact only the name, address, 3 4 5 6 7 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 8 Case No. 17-CV-04946-LHK ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART WITH PREJUDICE, AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL and birthday of the minor. 1 2 3 4 5 ECF No. 40-7: Exhibit 5 to Defendant Kaiser’s K1317; K1300– Proposed Administrative Record 04 (billing records) Entire Document GRANTED. ECF No. 40-7: K1305–12; K1313–16 Exhibit 5 to Defendant Kaiser’s Proposed Administrative Record (benefits claims and appeals correspondence) Entire Document DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, except for the name, address, and birthday of the minor. The benefits claims and appeals correspondence does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard. The parties shall refile and redact only the name, address, and birthday of the minor. ECF No. 40-8: K1272–79; K1280–83; K1284–91; K1292–95; K1296–99 Exhibit 6 to Defendant Kaiser’s Proposed Administrative Record (benefits claims and appeals correspondence) Entire Document DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, except for the name, address, and birthday of the minor. The benefits claims and appeals correspondence does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard. The parties shall refile and redact only the name, address, and birthday of the minor. ECF No. 40-9: K612–25 Exhibit 7 to Defendant Kaiser’s Proposed Administrative Record (Plaintiff’s level one appeals letter) Entire Document GRANTED. ECF No. 40-9: Exhibit 7 to Defendant Kaiser’s K626; K627–31 Proposed Administrative Record (billing records) Entire Document GRANTED. Exhibit 7 to Defendant Kaiser’s Proposed Administrative Record (minor’s medical records) Entire Document GRANTED. 6 7 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 ECF No. 40-9: K632–861; K901–1189 9 Case No. 17-CV-04946-LHK ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART WITH PREJUDICE, AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 1 2 3 4 ECF No. 40-9: K862 –73; K2029–31; MEYERS0208– 10; MEYERS0276– 83 Exhibit 7 to Defendant Kaiser’s Proposed Administrative Record (benefits claims and appeals correspondence) Entire Document DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, except for the name, address, and birthday of the minor. The benefits claims and appeals correspondence does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard. The parties shall refile and redact only the name, address, and birthday of the minor. ECF No. 40-9: K874–86 Exhibit 7 to Defendant Kaiser’s Proposed Administrative Record (Kaiser’s Plan) Entire Document DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. Kaiser’s Plan does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard and, in any event, is already public information. ECF No. 40-9: K887–88 Exhibit 7 to Defendant Kaiser’s Proposed Administrative Record (screenshot of web search by Plaintiff) Entire Document DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, except for the second term of the web search. The screenshot of the web search does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard, and the web search is publicly accessible. The parties shall refile and redact only the second term of the web search as done in the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. See ECF No. 76 at 35, lines 7–14. ECF No. 40-9: K889 Exhibit 7 to Defendant Kaiser’s Proposed Administrative Record (screenshot of web search by Plaintiff) Entire Document DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. The screenshot of the web search does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard, and the web 5 6 7 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 10 Case No. 17-CV-04946-LHK ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART WITH PREJUDICE, AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL search is publicly accessible. 1 2 3 ECF No. 40-9: K890–900 Exhibit 7 to Defendant Kaiser’s Entire Proposed Administrative Record Document (Accusation in Matter No. 11-543 from the California Department of Managed Health Care Brought Against Kaiser) DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. The Managed Department of Health Care Accusation against Kaiser does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard and is public. ECF No. 40-9: K2020–23 and ECF No. 44-4: K2020–23 Exhibit 7 to Defendant Kaiser’s Proposed Administrative Record and Exhibit 2, Part 2 to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (Kaiser’s records regarding claims status) Entire Document DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, except for the name, address, and birthday of the minor. Kaiser’s records regarding the claims status does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard. The parties shall refile and redact only the name, address, and birthday of the minor. ECF No. 40-10: K2619–2755 Exhibit 8 to Defendant Kaiser’s Proposed Administrative Record (minor’s medical records) Entire Document GRANTED. ECF No. 40-11: K2756–4124 Exhibit 9 to Defendant Kaiser’s Proposed Administrative Record (minor’s medical records) Entire Document GRANTED. ECF No. 54-3: K4125–32; 4133–40 Defendant Kaiser’s Exhibit 3 as Proposed Supplement to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (benefits claims and appeals correspondence) Entire Document DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, except for the name, address, and birthday of the minor. The benefits claims and appeals correspondence does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard. The parties shall refile and redact only the name, address, and birthday of the minor. 4 5 6 7 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 11 Case No. 17-CV-04946-LHK ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART WITH PREJUDICE, AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 1 ECF No. 54-3: K4141–44 Defendant Kaiser’s Exhibit 3 as Proposed Supplement to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (Kaiser’s records regarding claims status) Entire Document DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, except for the name, address, and birthday of the minor. Kaiser’s records regarding the claims status does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard. The parties shall refile and redact only the name, address, and birthday of the minor. ECF No. 54-3: K4145–49 Defendant Kaiser’s Exhibit 3 as Proposed Supplement to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (signed authorized representative form and other claim correspondence). Entire Document GRANTED. The records include sensitive information about the minor’s personal information that cannot easily be redacted. ECF No. 44-3: K251; K260– 302; K311–12; K321–22; K331–32; K341–43; K352–55; K364–92; K397–98; K407–08; K557–66; K579; K596– 606; K611 Exhibit 2, Part 1 to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (billing and claims records) Entire Document GRANTED. ECF No. 44-3: K252–K259; K303–K310; K313–20; K323–30; K333–40; K344–51; K356–63; K393–96; K399–406; K409–16; K555–56; K567–78; Exhibit 2, Part 1 to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (benefits claims and appeals correspondence) Entire Document DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, except for the name, address, and birthday of the minor. The benefits claims and appeals correspondence does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard. The parties shall refile and redact only the name, address, 2 3 4 5 6 7 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 12 Case No. 17-CV-04946-LHK ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART WITH PREJUDICE, AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 K580–81; K586–87; K592–95; K607–10 ECF No. 44-3: K417–554; K582–85; K588–91 Exhibit 2, Part 1 to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (minor’s medical records) Entire Document GRANTED. ECF No. 44-3: K1239 Exhibit 2, Part 1 to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (billing record) Entire Document GRANTED. ECF No. 44-3: K1268–69 Exhibit 2, Part 1 to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (benefits claims and appeals correspondence) Entire Document DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, except for the name, address, and birthday of the minor. The benefits claims and appeals correspondence does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard. The parties shall refile and redact only the name, address, and birthday of the minor. ECF No. 44-3: K1318–1329 Exhibit 2, Part 1 to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (benefits claims and appeals correspondence) Entire Document DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, except for the name, address, and birthday of the minor. The benefits claims and appeals correspondence does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard. The parties shall refile and redact only the name, address, and birthday of the minor. ECF No. 44-3: 1330 Exhibit 2, Part 1 to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (billing and claims record) Entire Document GRANTED. ECF No. 44-3: K1331–60 Exhibit 2, Part 1 to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (billing records) Entire Document GRANTED. 7 8 and birthday of the minor. 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 13 Case No. 17-CV-04946-LHK ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART WITH PREJUDICE, AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 1 2 3 4 ECF No. 44-3: K1361–64; K1366–69; K1371–82; K1384–95; K1397–1400; K1408–19 Exhibit 2, Part 1 to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (benefits claims and appeals correspondence) Entire Document DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, except for the name, address, and birthday of the minor. The benefits claims and appeals correspondence does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard. The parties shall refile and redact only the name, address, and birthday of the minor. ECF No. 44-3: K1365; K1370; K1383; K1396; K1401–07 Exhibit 2, Part 1 to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (billing and claims records) Entire Document GRANTED. ECF No. 44-3: K1420–23 Exhibit 2, Part 1 to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (minor’s medical records) Entire Document GRANTED. ECF No. 44-3: K1424–33; K1454–1683; K1723–2011 Exhibit 2, Part 1 to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (minor’s medical records) Entire Document GRANTED. ECF No. 44-3: K1434–47 Exhibit 2, Part 1 to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (Plaintiff’s level one appeals letter) Entire Document GRANTED. ECF No. 44-3: K1448–53 Exhibit 2, Part 1 to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (billing and claims records) Entire Document GRANTED. ECF No. 44-4: K1684–95; K2012–19 Exhibit 2, Part 2 to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (benefits claims and appeals correspondence) Entire Document DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, except for the name, address, and birthday of the minor. The benefits claims and appeals correspondence does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard. The parties shall refile and redact only the name, address, 5 6 7 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 14 Case No. 17-CV-04946-LHK ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART WITH PREJUDICE, AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL and birthday of the minor. 1 2 3 ECF No. 44-4: K1696–1708 Exhibit 2, Part 2 to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (Kaiser’s Plan) Entire Document DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. Kaiser’s Plan does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard and, in any event, is already public information. ECF No. 44-4: K1709–10 Exhibit 2, Part 2 to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (screenshot of web search by Plaintiff) Entire Document DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, except for the second term of the web search. The screenshot of the web search does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard, and the web search is publicly accessible. The parties shall refile and redact only the second term of the web search as done in the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. See ECF No. 76 at 35, lines 7–14. ECF No. 44-4: K1711 Exhibit 2, Part 2 to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (screenshot of web search by Plaintiff) Entire Document DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. The screenshot of the web search does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard, and the web search is publicly accessible. ECF No. 44-4: K1712–22 Exhibit 2, Part 2 to Plaintiff’s Entire Administrative Record Document (Accusation in Matter No. 11-543 from the California Department of Managed Health Care Brought Against Kaiser) 4 5 6 7 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 DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. The Managed Department of Health Care Accusation against Kaiser does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard and is public. 26 27 28 15 Case No. 17-CV-04946-LHK ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART WITH PREJUDICE, AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 1 ECF No. 44-4: K2024–28 Exhibit 2, Part 2 to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (signed authorized representative form and other claim correspondence). Entire Document GRANTED. The records include sensitive information about the minor’s personal information that cannot easily be redacted. ECF No. 44-4: K2032–35 Exhibit 2, Part 2 to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (Kaiser’s records regarding claims status) Entire Document DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, except for the name, address, and birthday of the minor. Kaiser’s records regarding the claims status does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard. The parties shall refile and redact only the name, address, and birthday of the minor. ECF No. 44-4: K2036–49 Exhibit 2, Part 2 to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (Plaintiff’s level one appeals letter) Entire Document GRANTED. ECF No. 44-4: K2050–55 Exhibit 2, Part 2 to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (billing records) Entire Document GRANTED. ECF No. 44-4: K2056–2285; K2325–2616 Exhibit 2, Part 2 to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (minor’s medical records) Entire Document GRANTED. ECF No. 44-4: K2286–2297 Exhibit 2, Part 2 to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (benefits claims and appeals correspondence) Entire Document DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, except for the name, address, and birthday of the minor. The benefits claims and appeals correspondence does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard. The parties shall refile and redact only the name, address, and birthday of the minor. 2 3 4 5 6 7 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 16 Case No. 17-CV-04946-LHK ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART WITH PREJUDICE, AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 1 ECF No. 44-4: K2298–2310 Exhibit 2, Part 2 to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (Kaiser’s Plan) Entire Document DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. Kaiser’s Plan does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard and, in any event, is already public information. ECF No. 44-4: K2311–12 Exhibit 2, Part 2 to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (screenshot of web search by Plaintiff) Entire Document DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, except for the second term of the web search. The screenshot of the web search does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard, and the web search is publicly accessible. The parties shall refile and redact only the second term of the web search as done in the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. See ECF No. 76 at 35, lines 7–14. ECF No. 44-4: K2313 Exhibit 2, Part 2 to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (screenshot of web search by Plaintiff) Entire Document DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. The screenshot of the web search does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard, and the web search is publicly accessible. ECF No. 44-4: K2314–24 Exhibit 2, Part 2 to Plaintiff’s Entire Administrative Record Document (Accusation in Matter No. 11-543 from the California Department of Managed Health Care Brought Against Kaiser) DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. The Managed Department of Health Care Accusation against Kaiser does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard and is public. ECF No. 44-4: K 2617–18 Exhibit 2, Part 2 to Plaintiff’s Administrative Record (minor’s medical records) GRANTED. 2 3 4 5 6 7 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 Entire Document 17 Case No. 17-CV-04946-LHK ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART WITH PREJUDICE, AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 1 Where the Court has denied sealing of information with prejudice, but allowed sealing of 2 the name, address, and birthday of the minor, the parties shall refile the above documents 3 consistent with this Order within seven days of this Order. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: January 6, 2019 6 7 ______________________________________ LUCY H. KOH 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 18 Case No. 17-CV-04946-LHK ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART WITH PREJUDICE, AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?