Saint Alphonsus Medical Center - Nampa et al v St Luke's Health System Ltd

Filing 357

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 250 Motion to Intervene and Request for Expedited Hearing for Immediate Access to Remaining Trial Proceedings, Unredacted Access to Trial Transcripts and Unredacted Videotaped Depositions and Exhibits as Used at Trial. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
SAINT ALPHONSUS MEDICAL CENTER NAMPA, INC., TREASURE VALLEY
HOSPITAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
Case No. 1:12-CV-00560-BLW (Lead
SAINT ALPHONSUS HEALTH SYSTEM,
Case)
INC., AND SAINT ALPHONSUS
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
v.
ST. LUKE’S HEALTH SYSTEM, LTD.
Defendant.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION; STATE
OF IDAHO

Case No. 1:13-CV-00116-BLW

Plaintiffs,
v.
ST. LUKE’S HEALTH SYSTEM, LTD.;
SALTZER MEDICAL GROUP, P.A.
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it a motion filed by various news agencies (referred to
collectively as the Associated Press, or “AP”) for immediate access to sealed trial
material in this case. The Court heard oral argument on the motion, granting it in part,
and indicating that a written decision would follow. This is that written decision,
confirming the rulings made from the bench.

ANALYSIS
The AP challenges this Court’s method of closing the courtroom to avoid the
public dissemination of sensitive trade secrets. The AP argues that the Court is
improperly deferring to the parties in deciding what material should be sealed, and asks
that all testimony and evidence that has been sealed be opened for public view.
This Court set forth the standard for sealing trial material in its Pretrial Order and
will not repeat in full that discussion here. It is enough to say that the presumption of
openness requires the proponent of sealing testimony or exhibits to demonstrate a
“compelling reason” to do so. The case law holds that compelling reasons exist to seal
trial material when the material contains sensitive trade secrets that could cause
substantial harm if publically disseminated. See Kamakana v. City & County of
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-1180 (9th Cir. 2006). This Court is required to
“articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.”
Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2009).
The AP’s late filing of this motion has created a dilemma for the Court. The
motion was not filed until after more than a week of trial had taken place. By the time
the parties responded and oral argument was held, more than two weeks of trial had
transpired. The late filing was especially egregious because the Court set forth its plan in
a Pretrial Order filed September 17, 2013, so that representatives of the media would
have an opportunity to file a pretrial motion to intervene and challenge the plan.
However, the AP waited more than two weeks before filing this challenge.

At any rate, the Court recognizes the need to be more specific in finding the
necessary “compelling reasons” to justify sealing certain testimony and exhibits. For
testimony and exhibits already sealed, the Court has ordered counsel to file affidavits
justifying the sealing, and the Court will determine if compelling reasons exist for the
sealing. Going forward, counsel must justify by the same standard any sealings that they
request.
To this point in the trial, the requests for sealing have largely been justified by
compelling reasons. For example, when testimony has been designated as confidential
and the courtroom cleared, the Court has found that the testimony given during the closed
session typically involved some combination of sensitive negotiation strategy,
confidential financial projections, or personal compensation information. Each of those
areas contains sensitive information in this highly competitive field that could have a
devastating financial impact on the parties (and third parties) if revealed. While some of
the closed testimony may not have touched on those areas, the public has been provided
with a transcript of those portions of the closed testimony that should not have been
sealed. The Court is now reviewing the record to determine if any additional material can
be disclosed.
As part of this resolution, the Court has offered counsel for AP the opportunity to
review all the material under the same obligations as counsel for the parties. The Court
understands that AP’s counsel has decided not to review the material.
In conclusion, the Court will grant in part the AP’s motion. The Court has
required the parties to file justifications for the sealing of trial testimony and exhibits, and

the Court will review that material to determine if compelling reasons exist to seal the
material. The Court will allow AP’s counsel to review all trial material under the same
obligation as counsel for the parties. Finally, the Court will direct counsel to continue to
provide the public with a transcript of closed court hearings, redacted only to the extent
that can be justified with compelling reasons, and the Court will review those redactions.
ORDER
In accord with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the AP’s request for
expedited hearing and motion to intervene for immediate access (docket no. 250) is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is granted to the extent it seeks (1)
intervention for the following parties to argue the access issue: The Associate Press, the
Idaho Statesman Publishing LLC, the Idaho Press Club, Inc., the Idaho-Press Tribune
(Nampa) owned by the Idaho Press-Tribune LLC, The Times-News (Twin Falls) owned
by Lee Publications, Inc., Blue Cross of Idaho Health Service (BCI), Primary Health,
Regence BlueShield, and Micron Technology, Inc; (2) an order directing the parties to
file justifications for the material already sealed and, going forward, the material they
request to be sealed; (3) authorization for AP’s counsel to review all material, sealed or
not, under the same obligation of confidentiality as the attorneys for the parties; and (4)
Court review of the submissions by the parties and a final determination of whether
compelling reasons exist for the sealings.

DATED: October 18, 2013

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court