Allstate Insurance Company et al v. Shah, MD et al

Filing 88

ORDER Granting #80 Motion to Seal Exhibits 43-65 and 70-86 re #73 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 2/23/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

DENNIS L. KENNEDY
Nevada Bar No. 1462
JOSEPH A. LIEBMAN
Nevada Bar No. 10125
JOSHUA P. GILMORE
Nevada Bar No. 11576
BAILEYKENNEDY
8984 Spanish Ridge Avenue
Las Vegas, Nevada 89148-1302
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 702.562.8821
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

8
9
10
11

Attorneys for Defendants & Counterclaimants
RUSSELL J. SHAH, M.D.; DIPTI R. SHAH,
M.D.; RUSSELL J. SHAH, MD, LTD.; DIPTI
R. SHAH, MD, LTD.; and RADAR
MEDICAL GROUP, LLP dba UNIVERSITY
URGENT CARE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

12
13
14
15
16

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE
INDEMNITY COMPANY, and ALLSTATE
FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY,

17
Plaintiffs,
18
vs.
19
20
21

Case No. 2:15-cv-01786-APG-CWH
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE UNDER SEAL EXHIBITS 4365 AND 70-86 SUPPORTING THEIR
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
PLAINTIFFS (FED. R. CIV. P. 11 AND
THE COURT’S INHERENT POWER)

RUSSELL J. SHAH, M.D.; DIPTI R. SHAH,
M.D.; RUSSELL J. SHAH, MD, LTD.; DIPTI
R. SHAH, MD, LTD.; and RADAR MEDICAL
GROUP, LLP dba UNIVERSITY URGENT
CARE, Does 1-100, and ROES 101-200,

22
Defendants.
23
________________________________________
24
AND RELATED CLAIMS.
25
26
27
28
Page 1 of 4

1

Defendants Russell J. Shah, M.D. (“Russell”), Dipti R. Shah, M.D. (“Dipti”), Radar Medical

2

Group, LLP (“Radar Medical Group”), Russell J. Shah, MD, Ltd. (“Russell PC”), and Dipti R.

3

Shah, MD, Ltd. (“Dipti PC”) (collectively, the “Radar Parties”) move this Court for leave to file

4

under seal Exhibits 43-65 and 70-86 supporting their Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiffs (Fed

5

R. Civ. P. 11 and the Court’s Inherent Power) [ECF No. 73] (the “Motion for Sanctions”). These

6

exhibits contain or reference “protected health information” concerning non-parties to this matter,

7

and therefore, compelling reasons exist to seal them.

8
9
10

This Motion is made and based on the papers and pleadings on file, the following
Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and any argument heard by the Court.
DATED this 1st day of February, 2017.

11

BAILEYKENNEDY

12

By: /s/ Dennis L. Kennedy
DENNIS L. KENNEDY
JOSEPH A. LIEBMAN
JOSHUA P. GILMORE

13
14
15

Attorneys for Defendants &
Counterclaimants

16
17
18

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
A party seeking to seal documents attached to a dispositive motion must identify

19

“compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” in order to overcome the presumptive

20

right of public access to those documents. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,

21

1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006). The Court will balance the competing interests of the public and the

22

parties (or non-parties) in deciding whether to seal judicial documents. See id. at 1179.

23

On February 1, 2017, the Radar Parties filed their Motion for Sanctions. The Radar Parties

24

attached twenty exhibits to their Motion for Sanctions that qualify (or likely qualify) for sealing:

25

Exhibits 43-65 and 70-86. Exhibits 43-65 consist of written reports prepared by various health care

26

providers describing medical treatment rendered to several patients purportedly at issue in this

27

matter. Exhibits 70-86 consist of claims notes that discuss or reference several patients purportedly

28

at issue in this matter who received medical treatment from one or more members of Radar Medical
Page 2 of 4

1

Group.1 The Insurance Companies have marked each these medical reports and each of their claim

2

notes as “CONFIDENTIAL” pursuant to the Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective

3

Order [ECF No. 39] (the “Protective Order”).

4

Because the patients referenced in Exhibits 43-65 and 70-86 are non-parties to this matter,

5

sealing these exhibits is warranted in order to protect the patients’ privacy interests under the Health

6

Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.2 See, e.g., Brodsky v. Baca, No. 3:14-cv-

7

00641-RCJ-WGC, 2015 WL 6962867, at *1 (D. Nev. Nov. 10, 2015) (recognizing that protecting

8

medical privacy qualifies as a “compelling reason” to seal judicial records).

9

For these reasons, the Court should grant this Motion to Seal.

10

DATED this 1st day of February, 2017.

11

BAILEYKENNEDY

12

By: /s/ Dennis L. Kennedy
DENNIS L. KENNEDY
JOSEPH A. LIEBMAN
JOSHUA P. GILMORE

13
14

Attorneys for Defendants &
Counterclaimants

15
16
February 23, 2017

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1

Excerpts were submitted in order to minimize the amount of private medical information filed with the Court.

2

28

On September 20, 2016, the Court entered an Order [ECF No. 67] sealing excerpts of claims notes for two other
patients purportedly at issue in this matter because they contained “sensitive medical information of non-parties.”

Page 3 of 4

1
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I am an employee of BAILEYKENNEDY and that on the 1st day of

3

February, 2017, service of the foregoing DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

4

UNDER SEAL EXHIBITS 43-65 AND 70-86 SUPPORTING THEIR MOTION FOR

5

SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS (FED. R. CIV. P. 11 AND THE COURT’S INHERENT

6

POWER) was made by mandatory electronic service through the United States District Court’s

7

electronic filing system and/or by emailing a true and correct copy to the following:

8
9
10
11

JARED P. GREEN, ESQ.
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW,
SHEPPARD, WAYTE &
CARRUTH LLP
8337 West Sunset Road, Suite 350
Las Vegas, NV 89113

Email:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

12

Attorneys for Plaintiffs/
Counterdefendants

13
14
15
16
17

ERON Z. CANNON, ESQ.
FAIN ANDERSON
VANDERHOEF ROSENDAHL
O’HALLORAN SPILLANE PLLC
701 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 4750
Seattle, WA 98104

Email:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs/
Counterdefendants

18
19
20
21

/s/ Susan Russo
Employee of BAILEYKENNEDY

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 4 of 4