RJ v. Cigna Behavioral Health, Inc. et al
Filing
223
ORDER re 189 Defendants' Motion to Retain Confidentiality Designations. Signed by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 2/6/2024. (vkdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2024)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
SAN JOSE DIVISION
7
RJ, et al.,
8
Plaintiffs,
9
v.
10
CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 20-cv-02255-EJD (VKD)
12
ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO RETAIN CONFIDENTIALITY
DESIGNATIONS
Re: Dkt. No. 189
Defendants.
13
Plaintiffs and defendants Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company (“Cigna”) and
14
15
MultiPlan, Inc. (“MultiPlan”) disagree regarding whether certain portions of three documents
16
should be designated as confidential under the stipulated protective order in this case (Dkt. No.
17
22). Dkt. No. 189. The three documents at issue are: (1) the expert report of defendants’ expert
18
Laurence Baker (“Baker Report”)1; (2) the declaration of Sean Crandell, Senior Vice President of
19
Healthcare Economics for defendant MultiPlan (“Crandell Declaration”)2; and (3) the expert
20
report of plaintiffs’ expert Research & Planning Consultants, LP (“New RPC Report”)3.
The parties disagree about the legal standard that applies to this dispute. Defendants argue
21
22
that the Court should apply the “good cause” standard for issuance of a protective order under
23
Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. No. 189 at 5-7. Noting that all three
24
documents have been filed in support of the parties’ class certification briefing, plaintiffs argue
25
26
1
Dkt. No. 189-2 (public/redacted); Dkt. No. 167-8 (unredacted).
27
2
Dkt. No. 166-12 (public/redacted); Dkt. No. 167-11 (unredacted).
28
3
Dkt. No. 189-3 (public/redacted); Dkt. No. 180-5 (unredacted).
1
that defendants must meet the “compelling reasons” standard for sealing judicial documents. Dkt.
2
No. 191 at 3.
3
The Court finds this dispute suitable for resolution without oral argument. See Civil. L.R.
4
7-1(b). For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants defendants’ motion in part and denies it
5
in part.
6
I.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
LEGAL STANDARD
The standard defendants must meet depends on the purpose for which the documents are
8
being used. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006).
9
Rule 26(c) and the provisions of the protective order govern the protections afforded materials
10
exchanged during discovery. See Dkt. No. 22 at 2; see also In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of
11
Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011) (describing standard). “The court may, for
12
good cause, issue an order to protect a party . . . from . . . undue burden . . . , including . . .
13
requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial
14
information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way.” Fed R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G).
15
“When discovery material is filed with the court, however, its status changes.” Foltz v. State
16
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir. 2003). Once documents are filed with
17
the Court, they become judicial documents, subject to the “federal common law right ‘to inspect
18
and copy public records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S.
19
589, 597 (1978)). A “strong presumption of access” applies to judicial records bearing on the
20
merits of an underlying dispute. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Valley Broadcasting Co. v.
21
U.S. Dist. Ct., 798 F.2d 1289, 1295 (9th Cir.1986)). That presumption can only be overcome by a
22
showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing the records from the public. Id.
23
Defendants’ motion argues that the three documents in question should retain their
24
“confidential” status for purposes of discovery, and therefore, the “good cause” standard applies.
25
“A party asserting good cause bears the burden, for each particular document it seeks to protect, of
26
showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” Foltz, 331
27
F.3d at 1130. If such a showing is made, the court must balance the interests of the public or other
28
entities against the interests of the private litigants to decide whether a protective order is
2
1
warranted. In re Roman Catholic Archbishop, 661 F.3d at 424. As the party seeking protection
2
from disclosure, defendants bear the burden of establishing good cause. This is true even where,
3
as here, the parties have stipulated to a protective order. Id. (“When the protective order was a
4
stipulated order and no party ha[s] made a good cause showing, then the burden of proof . . .
5
remain[s] with the party seeking protection.”) (quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen.
6
Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 n.1 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotes omitted)).
The Ninth Circuit’s decision in In re Roman Catholic Archbishop provides the framework
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
8
for decision here. That case requires the Court first to consider whether “particularized harm” will
9
result if the designated materials are disclosed to the public or to another party. In re Roman
10
Catholic Archbishop, 661 F.3d at 424. If the Court concludes that disclosure will result in specific
11
harm, the Court must then consider and balance other public and private interests in order to
12
decide whether defendants’ interest in protecting the material outweighs the public’s interest in
13
disclosure. Id. The relevant factors include: (1) whether disclosure will violate any privacy
14
interests; (2) whether the information is being sought for a legitimate purpose or for an improper
15
purpose; (3) whether disclosure of the information will cause a party embarrassment; (4) whether
16
confidentiality is being sought over information important to public health and safety; (5) whether
17
the disclosure of the information will promote fairness and efficiency; (6) whether a party
18
benefitting from the order of confidentiality is a public entity or official; and (7) whether the
19
disclosure is for purposes of a matter involving issues important to the public. See id. (citing
20
Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir. 1995)).
21
II.
22
DISCUSSION
Over the course of briefing on this motion, the parties have narrowed their disputes.
23
Moreover, the parties also have separately briefed before the presiding judge the question of
24
whether these three documents, having been filed in support of their class certification briefing,
25
meet the higher “compelling reasons” standard such that they may be filed under seal in whole or
26
in part. See Dkt. Nos. 150, 158, 167, 180, 184. The presiding judge has resolved those disputes,
27
while allowing for the possibility that modifications to those decisions might be warranted,
28
depending on how the Court resolves the parties’ disputes regarding confidentiality designations.
3
1
United States District Court
Northern District of California
2
Dkt. No. 210 at 21; Dkt. No. 211 at 2.
Defendants argue that the redacted portions of these three documents qualify for protection
3
as “confidential” material because they contain personal health information (“PHI”) from
4
confidential claims data, as well as defendants’ trade secrets and proprietary information
5
concerning defendants’ fees, rates, and pricing methodologies. Dkt. No. 189 at 2, 3, 4, 8-9.
6
Specifically, defendants say that the Baker Report reveals confidential information about the fee
7
rates collected by Cigna for its out-of-network claim protection services; claim payment rates;
8
amounts offered as part of claim negotiations; details regarding Cigna’s “funnel technique”;
9
information about Cigna’s claims data, PHI, and other sensitive information; details and inputs for
10
MultiPlan’s Viant pricing methodology; and analysis of Cigna’s market share. Id. at 8. They say
11
the Crandell Declaration reveals confidential information about the details of MultiPlan’s Viant
12
product design and pricing methodology. Id. And they say that the New RPC Report reveals
13
confidential information about Cigna’s claims data and defendants’ fee rates. Id. at 9. Defendants
14
support their motion with the declarations of Cigna and MultiPlan employees submitted in support
15
of their earlier administrative motions to seal. See Dkt. Nos. 158-3, 167-2, 167-3, 167-4, 167-6,
16
184-2, 184-6. Defendants explain that they will suffer competitive harm if the confidential
17
information in these documents is publicly disclosed, and that public disclosure also risks
18
compromising the privacy interests of plaintiffs and non-parties. See Dkt. No. 189 at 10-11.
19
Defendants also contend that the additional factors the Court must consider demonstrate that their
20
interest in protecting this material outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure. See id. at 11-12.
21
Plaintiffs challenge many of defendants’ proposed redactions on various grounds,
22
including that the redacted information does not contain PHI, is disclosed in the complaint or other
23
public filings, or is too general to warrant protection. See Dkt. No. 191 at 5-11. In addition,
24
plaintiffs argue that defendants fail to identify any particularized harm that they may suffer from
25
public disclosure of the disputed material, and that the additional factors the Court must consider
26
are either neutral or favor disclosure. Id. at 11-13.
27
28
As a general matter, the Court agrees with defendants that disclosure of the categories of
information defendants identify—PHI, claims data, and defendants’ fees, rates, and pricing
4
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
methodologies—may result in particularized harm to defendants and others. Thus, the Court
2
considers the other relevant factors. First, disclosure of PHI and claim-specific information may
3
violate individual privacy interests and may potentially cause embarrassment to individuals whose
4
information is disclosed. These factors favor defendants. Second, plaintiffs’ purpose in
5
challenging defendants’ confidentiality designations under Rule 26(c) and the protective order is
6
unclear. Defendants’ confidentiality designations do not appear to have hindered plaintiffs’ ability
7
to develop responsive expert evidence or to brief class certification. Likewise. it is unclear how
8
disclosure of the designated material will promote fairness and efficiency. These factors are
9
neutral. Finally, there is undoubtedly significant public interest in the underlying action, and some
10
of the information defendants have designated as confidential likely is important to the public.
11
These factors favor plaintiffs.4
Having considered the specific material in question, the applicable factors bearing on
12
13
disclosure and confidentiality, the parties’ arguments, and the applicable law, the Court resolves
14
the dispute concerning defendants’ confidentiality designations as follows:5
A.
15
16
Baker Report6
17
Designation
¶ 17, n. 23
Ruling
Confidential: Context discloses PHI.
18
¶ 23
Not confidential: General description; disclosed publicly during
class certification hearing.
¶¶ 25, 27-29, 31
Not confidential: General description.
First sentences of ¶¶ 25, 27, 28.
19
20
21
Confidential: Discloses details of Cigna’s pricing methodology.
¶¶ 25, 27 & n. 33, ¶¶ 28, 29, 31.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
This dispute does not concern confidentiality asserted by a public entity or official, and so that
factor does not apply.
5
The Court resolves only those designations that are disputed. The parties have agreed that
certain information should or should not be designated as confidential and those agreements are
not reflected here.
6
The paragraph numbers below refer to disputed designations in Dkt. No. 189-2.
5
1
Designation
¶ 33
Ruling
Confidential: Discloses details of Cigna’s arrangements with plan
clients.
¶¶ 35-37
Not confidential: General description.
First and third sentences of ¶ 37.
2
3
4
Confidential: Discloses details of Cigna’s pricing methodology.
¶¶ 35-37 & n. 54.
5
6
¶¶ 41-43, 46
7
Not confidential: General description.
Last sentence of ¶ 41.
Confidential: Discloses details of plaintiffs’ claims.
¶ 41 & n. 60; ¶¶ 42, 43 & nn. 65, 66; ¶ 46.
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
¶¶ 52-54, 57-58
Confidential: Discloses PHI, claim-specific information
(including nn. 83, 92, 100).
¶¶ 60-61
Confidential: Discloses PHI, claim-specific information.
(including nn. 109, 113).
¶ 71
Not confidential: General description; disclosed publicly during
class certification hearing (including n. 148).
¶¶ 90-92
Not confidential: Percentage referenced in fourth sentence of ¶ 90
was disclosed publicly during class certification hearing; last
sentence of ¶ 91 is derived from public information.
12
13
14
15
16
Confidential: Claim-specific information in last sentence of ¶ 90 &
n. 169; claim-specific information in ¶ 92.
17
18
¶¶ 97-99, 102
Confidential: Discloses claim-specific information
(including nn. 179-183).
¶¶ 129-130
Not confidential: General description.
¶ 129 & n. 228.
19
20
21
Confidential: Discloses details of Cigna’s pricing methodology.
¶ 130.
22
23
¶¶ 132-137
24
25
26
27
Not confidential: Critique of other experts’ methodology and general
discussion.
¶¶ 132, 133 & n. 235; ¶¶ 134, 136.
Confidential: Discloses details of Cigna’s operations in different
markets.
¶ 135 & nn. 240, 241, 243; ¶ 137 & n. 247.
28
6
B.
1
2
Crandell Declaration7
3
Designation
¶¶ 9-12
Ruling
Not confidential: General description of Viant’s business.
4
¶¶ 13-19 & 22
Not confidential: General description of Viant OPR methodology.
¶¶ 13, 14 & n. 1; ¶¶ 15, 16.
5
Confidential: Discloses details of data collection.
¶¶ 17, 18, 19 & n. 2; ¶ 22.
6
7
¶¶ 25-46
Not confidential: General description of Viant OPR methodology.
¶¶ 25, 26 & n. 3; ¶¶ 27, 28.
8
Confidential: Discloses details of Viant OPR methodology.
¶¶ 29-46 (including nn. 4-6).
9
10
¶¶ 50-58, 60-61
Confidential: Discloses details of Viant OPR methodology and
MultiPlan’s operations (including nn. 7, 8).
¶¶ 63-66
Not confidential: General statement of opinion.
¶ 63.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
Confidential: Discloses detailed critique of RPC Report filed under
seal at Dkt. No. 151-3.
¶ 64 & n. 8; ¶¶ 65, 66.
14
15
16
Exhs. A, B & C
Confidential: Discloses details of Viant OPR methodology.
17
Exhibit D
Confidential: Discloses details of MultiPlan claims processing.
18
C.
19
20
New RPC Report8
Designation
¶¶ 10-14
Ruling
Confidential: Refers to material designated confidential in Crandell
Declaration ¶¶ 15, 16, 42 & n. 6 which retains its confidentiality
designation.
23
¶ 17
Not confidential: General description of Viant OPR methodology.
24
¶¶ 20-21
Not confidential: General description of Viant OPR data source.
21
22
25
26
27
28
7
The paragraph numbers below refer to disputed designations in Dkt. No. 166-12.
8
The paragraph numbers below refer to disputed designations in Dkt. No. 189-3.
7
Designation
1
2
Confidential: Discloses details of Viant OPR pricing methodology.
¶ 21.
3
4
¶¶ 23-24
Confidential: Discloses details of Viant OPR pricing methodology.
5
¶¶ 29-30
Not confidential: General description of Cigna’s claims data and
dispute data in ¶ 29 and first three sentences of ¶ 30.
6
Confidential: Discloses details of Cigna’s operations.
Chart in ¶ 30.
7
8
¶¶ 33-38
9
10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Ruling
¶ 20.
Not confidential: General description of expert methodology and
opinion in ¶ 33, and last sentence of ¶ 37; general discussion of
Cigna and MultiPlan methodology in third and fifth sentences of
¶ 34; general discussion of Mr. Crandell’s opinion in ¶ 35.
Confidential: Discloses details of Viant OPR methodology.
Last sentence of ¶ 34, last sentence of ¶ 36, third sentence of ¶ 37,
and ¶ 38.
12
13
¶ 48
Confidential: Discloses details of Cigna’s operations.
¶¶ 51-53
Not confidential: General description of expert opinion.
Fifth sentence of ¶ 53.
14
15
16
Confidential: Discloses details of Cigna’s operations.
¶¶ 51, 52, and in third sentence of ¶ 53.
17
18
¶ 55
Confidential: Discloses details of Cigna’s operations.
19
¶¶ 58-60
Confidential: Disclose details of Cigna’s claims data and disputes
data.
20
21
22
III.
23
CONCLUSION
The Court directs the parties to confer regarding efficient means to document the
24
confidentiality designations that apply to these three documents, in view of this decision, for
25
purposes of discovery and, if appropriate, their respective submissions regarding class
26
certification.
27
//
28
//
8
1
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 6, 2024
3
4
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge
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
9
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?