Academy of Allergy & Asthma in Primary Care et al v. Louisiana Health Service and Indemnity Company et al

Filing 376

ORDER AND REASONS granting in part and denying in part 362 Motion to Seal. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Seal (ECF No. 362) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as stated herein. Partially redacted Exhibits B, C, E, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, P, R, S, T, V, W, X, and Y will be e-mailed to Plaintiffs' counsel, and Plaintiffs' counsel is directed to move to substitute these court redacted exhibits, as well as non-redacted Exhibits A, D, F, G, O, Q, and U, for those currently attached to their motion to compel (ECF Nos. 262-17262-41) within 14 days, absent any appeal of this ruling. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna Phillips Currault on 6/7/2023. (rt)

Case 2:18-cv-00399-CJB-DPC Document 376 Filed 06/07/23 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ACADEMY OF ALLERGY & ASTHMA *
IN PRIMARY CARE, ET AL.
*
VERSUS
*
LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE AND
INDEMNITY COMPANY, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 18-399
SECTION “J” (2)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before me is Plaintiffs Academy of Allergy & Asthma in Primary Care and United
Biologics, LLC d/b/a United Allergy Services’ Motion to File Certain Documents under Seal,
which motion was filed as an ex parte/consent motion but failed to indicate whether Plaintiffs
obtained the consent of all other parties before filing same. ECF No. 362. Nevertheless, no party
filed an Opposition Memorandum.
Having considered the record, the submissions and arguments of counsel, and the
applicable law, Plaintiffs’ motion (ECF No. 362) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN
PART for the reasons stated herein.
I.

BACKGROUND
This litigation arises from an alleged conspiracy to exclude Plaintiffs from the market for

allergy testing and allergen immunotherapy in certain areas of Louisiana, Kansas, and other states.
Plaintiff United Biologics, LLC, d/b/a United Allergy Services (“UAS”) provides equipment,
technicians and support services necessary for the treatment of allergy testing and immunotherapy.
ECF No. 145. Plaintiff Academy of Allergy & Asthma in Primary Care (“AAAPC”) is a nonprofit organization composed of primary care physicians who seek to provide allergy and asthma
treatments to patients. Id. ¶ 12, at 6. Plaintiffs allege that UAS’s services allow primary care
physicians to conduct cost-effective allergy skin testing and immunotherapies from these
1

Case 2:18-cv-00399-CJB-DPC Document 376 Filed 06/07/23 Page 2 of 5

physicians’ own offices or clinics, which allows non-specialized physicians to enter the allergy
market and eliminate the need to refer patients to board-certified allergists or outsource blood
allergy tests to reference laboratories and their entry into the allergy market had two major
consequences: it disrupted the system of referrals from primary care doctors to allergy specialists
and it also required health insurance companies “to pay more upfront in preventative medicine by
reaching far more patients than board-certified allergists could in their respective markets.” ECF
No. 145, ¶ 24, at 11.
On January 24, 2022 this Court ordered the temporary sealing of Exhibits A-Y to Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel (ECF No. 262) for a three month period, before the expiration of which
Plaintiffs’ counsel or third party counsel could file an additional motion to seal the documents.
ECF No. 273.
Over a year later, on April 25, 2023, only after Centene Corporation filed a contested
Motion to Intervene for purposes of moving to unseal the same documents now at issue, did
Plaintiffs file an unopposed ex parte motion to reseal Exhibits A-Y. ECF Nos. 339-40. Although
the motion was initially granted, on May 3, 2023, the undersigned vacated that order and gave
Plaintiffs 14 days within which to submit proposed redacted versions, highlighting the portions of
each document, after a document-by-document, line-by-line review, that Plaintiffs contend reflect
information that must be sealed.
1. The Motion to Seal
Plaintiffs seek to permanently seal portions of the twenty-five exhibits at issue and have
delivered proposed redactions, arguing the exhibits primarily contain trade secrets and confidential
information. See ECF Nos. 362-364. Plaintiffs claim to have marked for redaction only the lines
that contain confidential financial information, business operations, legal positions, or other trade

2

Case 2:18-cv-00399-CJB-DPC Document 376 Filed 06/07/23 Page 3 of 5

secret information that would allegedly damage Plaintiffs’ reputation if publicly filed. ECF No.
362-1 at 3. Plaintiffs assert that the documents at issue were meant only for the eyes of UAS’
board of directors and essential staff because they contain financial reports as well as commentary
and forecasting on such reports. Id. at 4. Plaintiffs submit three categories of redactions—limited
business and planning information, financial information, and legal strategies and settlements—
and assert that no heightened public interest in accessing this information weighs against Plaintiffs’
concerns. Id. at 4-5.
II.

APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
“Judicial records belong to the American people; they are public, not private, documents,

and “[t]he public's right of access to judicial records is a fundamental element of the rule of law.”
June Medical Services, L.L.C. v. Phillips, 22 F.4th 512, 519–20 (5th Cir. 2022) (citations omitted).
Independent of the parties’ interests, the public has an interest in transparent court proceedings,
which promote trustworthiness of the judicial process, curb judicial abuses, and provide the public
with a more complete understanding of the judicial system, including a better perception of its
fairness. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. v. Claimant ID 100246928, 920 F.3d 209, 210 (5th
Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted). Thus, “the working presumption is that judicial records should not
be sealed.” Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Finance Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 419 (5th Cir. 2021) (citation
omitted).
The sealing of judicial records is thus the exception rather than the norm, and courts should
be ungenerous with their discretion to seal judicial records. Id. at 417-19 (citations omitted); June
Medical Services, 22 F.4th at 519-21 (same). Moreover, the standard for placing a document under
seal is different from the standard governing whether unfiled discovery should be kept
confidential. Bin Hoa Le, 990 F.3d at 419-20. A party’s position that documents should be

3

Case 2:18-cv-00399-CJB-DPC Document 376 Filed 06/07/23 Page 4 of 5

confidential under the terms of a Protective Order is not dispositive of whether the documents
should also be filed under seal.
Litigants do, however, “sometimes have good reasons to file documents . . . under seal,
such as protecting trade secrets or the identities of confidential informants.” Id. at 419. While
there is a presumption of public access to judicial records, court have recognized that this access
is not absolute. See, e.g., S.E.C. v. Van Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d 845, 848 (5th Cir. 1993) (citing
Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)); North Cypress Medical Center
Operating Co., Ltd. v. Cigna Healthcare, 781 F.3d 182, 203-04 (5th Cir. 2015) (recognizing that
a court may seal documents that contain confidential business information) (citations omitted);
Ruby Slipper Cafe, LLC v. Belou, No. 18-1548, 2020 WL 4897905, at *9 (E.D. La. Jan. 8, 2020)
(noting that courts have recognized “parties’ strong interest in keeping their detailed financial
information sealed” because the public has a “relatively minimal interest in [that] particular
information”) (citations omitted); Westside-Marrero Jeep Eagle, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., Inc., No.
97-3012, 1998 WL 186728, at *1 (E.D. La. Apr. 17, 1998) (maintaining exhibit under seal because
the document contained sensitive and proprietary financial information about individual
dealerships that, if unsealed, could cause commercial and competitive harm to such dealers). “In
exercising its discretion to seal judicial records, the court must balance the public’s common law
right of access against the interests favoring nondisclosure.” Van Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d at 848
(citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599).
The party seeking to overcome the presumption of public access bears the burden to show
that its privacy interests outweigh the presumption, and the court should construe any doubt in
favor of disclosure. Weiss v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 06-3774, 2007 WL 2377119, at *4 (E.D.
La. Aug. 16, 2007) (Vance, J.) (citations omitted). To determine whether a judicial record should

4

Case 2:18-cv-00399-CJB-DPC Document 376 Filed 06/07/23 Page 5 of 5

be sealed, the court “must undertake a case-by-case, document-by-document, line-by-line
balancing of the public’s common law right of access against the interests favoring nondisclosure.”
Binh Hoa Le, 990 F.3d at 419-20 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
After reviewing the documents at issue in their entirety and Plaintiffs’ proposed redactions,
the undersigned has determined that Plaintiffs’ motion to seal must be denied as to Exhibits A, D,
F, G, O, Q, and U, which are either transmittal e-mails or meeting minutes containing no
confidential information. The court further grants in part and denies in part the motion to seal as
to Exhibits B, C, E, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, P, R, S, T, V, W, X, and Y. Balancing the public’s common
law right of access to the exhibits against the interest favoring nondisclosure, the Court has
adjusted the redactions to shield from the public view only the confidential business information
and detailed financial records 1 contained within each exhibit.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (ECF No. 362) is GRANTED IN PART

and DENIED IN PART as stated herein. Partially redacted Exhibits B, C, E, H, I, J, K, L, M, N,
P, R, S, T, V, W, X, and Y will be e-mailed to Plaintiffs’ counsel, and Plaintiffs’ counsel is directed
to move to substitute these court redacted exhibits, as well as non-redacted Exhibits A, D, F, G, O,
Q, and U, for those currently attached to their motion to compel (ECF Nos. 262-17—262-41)
within 14 days, absent any appeal of this ruling.

7th
New Orleans, Louisiana, this ________
day of June, 2023.
___________________________________
DONNA PHILLIPS CURRAULT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1

See Ruby Slipper, 2020 WL 4897905, at *9.

5