BRIGLIA v. AMERITAS LIFE INSURANCE CORP. et al

Filing 42

ORDER granting 4 Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams on 7/14/15. (dd, )

[Doc. No. 4]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
--------------------------------FRANK A. BRIGLIA, M.D.,
CIVIL ACTION NO.:
1:14-cv-07968-RBK-KMW

Plaintiff,
v.
AMERITAS LIFE INSURANCE CORP. and
THE UNION CENTRAL LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendants.
--------------------------------ORDER TO SEAL

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on the Motion
of Plaintiff Frank A. Briglia, M.D., for the entry of an Order
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) and Local
Civil

Rule

action;

5.3(c)

and

sealing

the

Court

the

having

Complaint

filed

considered

the

in

this

written

submissions of the parties and the arguments of counsel during
the June 17, 2015 oral argument; and for good cause shown, the
Court grants the Motion based upon the following findings of
fact and conclusions of law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.

This

declaratory
Insurance

is

an

judgment
Corp.’s

interest, The

action
arising

for
from

(“Ameritas”)

breach

of

Defendants
and

its

contract
Ameritas

predecessor

and
Life
in

Union Central Life Insurance Company’s (“Union
3

Central”) (together, the “Defendants”) alleged breach of five
occupational

disability

policies

entered

into

by

the

Defendants and Dr. Briglia (the “Policies”).
2.

Dr. Briglia and Defendants dispute whether a medical

condition has rendered Dr. Briglia “Totally Disabled,” as that
term is defined in the Policies (the “medical condition”).
3.

The

Complaint

contains

details

Briglia’s medical condition.

These

details

the

that

Dr.

Complaint’s

Disabled
the

allegations

regarding
are

Briglia

integral
is

Dr.
to

Totally

pursuant to the Policies. Thus, certain details of

medical

condition,

such

as

the

name

of

the

medical

condition, description of the condition and its prognosis, are
redacted from the publicly filed Complaint as follows:
a) The name of the medical condition is redacted from
paragraphs 1, 20, and 31(1);
b) Portions of paragraph 18, which discuss the onset
and

progression

of

the

medical

condition,

are

redacted;
c) The entirety of paragraph 19, which describes the
condition

in

general

terms

including

the

related

symptoms and prognosis, is redacted; and
d) Portions

of

paragraph

22,

which

discuss

the

progression of the medical condition, are redacted.
4

4.
critical

Dr.

Briglia

was

care

specialist.

once

employed

Affidavit

of

as

a

Frank

pediatric
A.

Briglia

(“Briglia Aff.”) ¶ 4, June 24, 2015.
5.
care

to

Dr.

Briglia

children

is able

and

to

perform

administrative work in pediatrics.

provide general
executive,

pediatric

managerial

and

Id. at ¶ 5.

6.

Dr. Briglia is sixty-five (65) years of age.

7.

Dr.

Id. at

¶ 10.

executive
available.
8.

Briglia

level

intends

position

to

when

pursue
such

a

an

administrative,

position

becomes

Id. at ¶ 11.
Dr. Briglia is concerned about the harm that may

result from the public disclosure of his medical condition due
to ageism in the medical profession and the possibility that
he will be judged based upon his condition, thereby, impeding
his ability to secure other positions that may arise.

Id. at

¶¶ 8-13.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
9.

There exists a common law public right of access to

judicial proceedings and records.

Rosario v. Doe, No. 08-

5185, 2013 WL 3283903, at *2 (D.N.J. June 25, 2013)(citing In
re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001)).
10.

“‘[T]he right to inspect and copy judicial records
5

is

not

absolute.’”

Archbrook

Laguna

LLC

v.

New

Age

Electronics, Inc., No. 08-1421, 2008 WL 2987164, at *2 (D.N.J.
Aug. 4, 2008) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
U.S. 589, 598 (1978)).
11.

In order to overcome this presumption of a public

right of access, the movant must demonstrate that “good cause”
exists for the protection of the material at issue.

Locascio

v. Balicki, No. 07-4834, 2011 WL 2490832, at *6 (D.N.J. June
22, 2011)(citing Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772,
786 (3d Cir. 1994)).
12.

Pursuant

determining
Court

the

to

Local

Civil

appropriateness

considers:

“(a)

the

of

Rule

a

nature

5.3(c)(2),

request
of

the

to

in

seal,

the

materials

or

proceedings at issue, (b) the legitimate private or public
interests which warrant the relief sought, (c) the clearly
defined and serious injury that would result if the relief
sought

is

not

granted,

and

(d)

why

a

less

restrictive

alternative to the relief sought is not available.”
13.
that

"[C]aution must be exercised when filing documents

contain

diagnoses."
6131,

2008

.

.

.

[m]edical

records,

treatment,

and

Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Bennett, No. 07U.S.

Dist.

LEXIS

36394,

at

*2

(D.N.J.

May

1,

2008)(citing L. Civ. R., ELECTRONIC CASE FILING POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES ¶ 17, as amended April 3, 2014).
6

14.
medical

An individual has a right to privacy in his or her
information.

United

States

v.

Westinghouse

Elec.

Corp., 638 F.2d 570, 577 (3d Cir. 1980)(“Information about
one's body and state of health is matter which the individual
is ordinarily entitled to retain within the ‘private enclave
where he may lead a private life.’

It has been recognized in

various contexts that medical records and information stand on
a different plane than other relevant material.”); Rosario,
2013 WL 3283903, at *3 fn. 1 (D.N.J. June 25, 2013); Locascio,
2011 WL 2490832, at *6.
15.

First, the nature of the information that Plaintiff

seeks to protect is that relating to the name of his medical
condition

and

its

prognosis.

Plaintiff

protect the fact that he has a medical

does

not

seek

to

condition and its

impact on his ability to perform his prior occupation.
16.

Second, as outlined in the case law above, Plaintiff

has a legitimate privacy interest in his medical information
which would warrant the relief sought.

Indeed, at least one

court in this District has sealed portions of a complaint, at
the request of the insurance company plaintiff, finding that
defendant had an interest in maintaining the privacy of his
medical information. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Bennett,
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36394, at *2-3.
17.

Third, public disclosure of the Complaint, without
7

the requested redactions, would result in a clearly defined
and serious injury to Dr. Briglia by publicly disclosing his
private and confidential medical information.
Life

Ins.

Co.

v.

Bennett,

Judge

In Metropolitan

Bongiovanni

granted

the

request of the insurance company plaintiff to redact portions
of

the

complaint

which

referenced

defendant’s

medical

condition and medical treatment in a case related to whether
the defendant was entitled to disability benefits based upon
alleged

misrepresentations

by

defendant.

2008

U.S.

Dist.

LEXIS 36394, at *1.

While that motion was unopposed, in

granting

the

the

motion,

court

still

made

findings pursuant to L. Civ. R. 5.3(c)(2).
regard,
policies

the
and

court

noted

that

procedures

this

stating

the

Id. at 2.

District

that

requisite
In this

promulgated

caution

shall

be

exercised in filing documents containing medical treatment and
diagnoses

and

public

disclosure

of

defendant’s

medical

information would harm defendant’s privacy interests in same.
Id. at *2-3.

In this instance, the public’s right to access

does not outweigh Plaintiff’s right to privacy in his medical
information, especially since the information Plaintiff seeks
to redact is narrowly tailored to ensure that the public is
properly

apprised

of

the

other

allegations

which

form

basis of Plaintiff’s claims.
Notably, the factors outlined in Pansy also support
8

the

sealing the requested information.

In this regard, “‘[g]ood

cause is established on a showing that disclosure will work a
clearly

defined

and

serious

injury

closure.’” Pansy, 23 F.3d at 786.
factors

to

determine

established.1
right

to

whether

to

the

party

seeking

Courts balance several
“good

cause”

has

been

Here, the disclosure will violate Plaintiff’s

privacy

in

his

medical

information,

seeking this Order for a legitimate purpose.

thus,

he

is

Moreover, the

confidentiality being sought does not relate to information
important

to

public

health

or

safety,

Plaintiff

is

not

a

public official nor are the issues involved important to the
public.

Moreover,

embarrassed,

and

Plaintiff
potential

claims

that

employment

he

will

be

opportunities

compromised, if his condition were publicly disclosed.

Last,

the information is still fully available to Defendants.

Thus,

none

of

the

Pansy

factors

weigh

against

granting

select

redactions to the Complaint.
18.

Fourth, Plaintiff has proposed a less restrictive

alternative to sealing the Complaint.

Here, Plaintiff seeks

redactions to the Complaint as opposed to sealing the entire

The factors are whether: (1) disclosure will violate any privacy interests;
(2) the information is being sought for a legitimate purpose or for an
improper purpose; (3) disclosure of the information will cause a party
embarrassment; (4) confidentiality is being sought over information important
to public health and safety; (5) the sharing of information among litigants
will promote fairness and efficiency; (6) a party benefitting from the order
of confidentiality is a public entity or official; and (7) the case involves
1

9

pleading.

Moreover, Plaintiff only seeks to protect the name

of his medical condition and its prognosis.

Plaintiff does

not seek to protect the fact that he has a medical condition
and its impact on his ability to perform his prior occupation.
19.

All four factors outlined in L. Civ. R. 5.3, and the

factors outlined in Pansy, support the requested redactions.
Moreover, the foregoing conclusions are supported by relevant
case law holding that the right of public access to judicial
documents and proceedings is not absolute and may be overcome
by a showing such as made here in the discretion of the Court.
Consequently, IT IS this 14th of July, 2015, hereby
ORDERED that Dr. Briglia’s Motion [Doc. No. 4] seeking to
seal

the

following

portions

of

the

Complaint

is

GRANTED:

Portions of paragraphs 1, 20, and 31(1) referencing the name
of the condition; portions of paragraph 18 which discuss the
onset and progression of the medical condition; the entirety
of paragraph 19 which describes the condition in general terms
including the related symptoms and prognosis; and portions of
paragraph 22, which discuss the progression of the medical
condition.
s/ Karen M. Williams
Hon. Karen M. Williams
United States Magistrate Judge
cc: Hon. Robert B. Kugler
issues important to the public. See Pansy, 23 F.3d at 788-88.

10