Kuriyan v. Health Care Services Corporation et al

Filing 149

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kirtan Khalsa GRANTING IN PART 147 the United States' Unopposed Motion to File Disclosure Statement Under Seal. (glg)

Case 1:16-cv-01148-JAP-KK Document 149 Filed 12/16/20 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and
STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel.
JACOB KURIYAN,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civ. No. 16-1148 JAP/KK

MOLINA HEALTHCARE OF NEW
MEXICO, INC. et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART THE UNITED STATES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
TO FILE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT UNDER SEAL
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the United States of America’s Unopposed Motion
to File Relator’s Disclosure Statement Under Seal (Doc. 147), filed December 11, 2020. The Court,
having reviewed the motion and having noted that it is unopposed, FINDS that the motion is well
taken in part and is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows.
“Courts have long recognized a common-law right of access to judicial records.” Mann v.
Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007). “Although this right is not absolute, there is a
strong presumption in favor of public access . . . particularly . . . where the district court use[s] the
sealed documents to determine litigants’ substantive legal rights.” United States v. Pickard, 733
F.3d 1297, 1302 (10th Cir. 2013).
[T]he presumption in favor of access to judicial records may be overcome where
countervailing interests heavily outweigh the public interests in access. The burden
is on the party seeking to restrict access to show some significant interest that
outweighs the presumption.
Colony Ins. Co. v. Burke, 698 F.3d 1222, 1241 (10th Cir. 2012) (citations and quotation marks
omitted).

Case 1:16-cv-01148-JAP-KK Document 149 Filed 12/16/20 Page 2 of 4

“[T]he district court, in exercising its discretion, must weigh the interests of the public,
which are presumptively paramount, against those advanced by the parties.” Pickard, 733 F.3d at
1302. “Whether a trial court exercises sound discretion will be based on the facts and
circumstances of the individual case and the weighing of the parties’ interests.” Riker v. Fed.
Bureau of Prisons, 315 F. App’x 752, 755 (10th Cir. 2009).1 The district court must also “consider
whether selectively redacting just the . . . sensitive, and previously undisclosed, information from
the sealed . . . documents and then unsealing the rest” would adequately protect the privacy
interests of the party seeking to seal court documents. Pickard, 733 F.3d at 1304. The fact that
information has “already been made public” will undermine a party’s privacy concerns. Id. at 1305
(citing Mann, 477 F.3d at 1149).
In the instant case, the United States seeks leave to file “Relator’s Disclosure Statement
with all attachments” under seal. (Doc. 147 at 1.) According to the United States, these documents
are “directly relevant to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and [are] referenced in Relator’s
Complaint and in the Government’s Statement of Interest.” (Id. at 2.) The sole basis the United
States proffers for sealing the documents at issue is that “many courts (though none in the Tenth
Circuit) have held that the Disclosure Statement is protected by the attorney work product or
possibly some other privileges,” and thus the Court should seal the documents “to preserve any
privilege that Relator may have in connection with [them].” (Id. at 2-3.)
The foregoing proffer clearly fails to satisfy the parties’ burden to show a significant
interest that heavily outweighs the public’s strong, presumptive right of access to the Disclosure
Statement and attachments, which the Court will likely consider in adjudicating the parties’

1

Unpublished decisions are not binding precedent in the Tenth Circuit but may be cited for their persuasive value.
United States v. Austin, 426 F.3d 1266, 1274 (10th Cir. 2005).

2

Case 1:16-cv-01148-JAP-KK Document 149 Filed 12/16/20 Page 3 of 4

substantive legal rights. Further, the United States does not appear to have considered whether
redaction of any sensitive and previously undisclosed information in these documents would
sufficiently protect whatever privilege might apply to their contents. The Court therefore finds that
the United States has failed to justify permanently sealing the Disclosure Statement and all
attachments thereto.
However, to preserve any valid claim of privilege that Relator may have, the Court will
allow the United States to temporarily file the documents in question as separate sealed exhibits
to its Statement of Interest (Doc. 148). Within fourteen (14) days of entry of this Order, the parties
are directed to confer and attempt to agree upon appropriate redactions, if any, to the documents
temporarily filed under seal pursuant to this Order. The parties should make these redactions in
light of the law discussed herein. Such redactions should be no more extensive than necessary to
preserve Relator’s valid claim(s) of privilege, if any. If the parties are able to agree upon such
redactions, the United States shall re-file the documents in question unsealed and with the agreedupon redactions. If the parties cannot agree upon appropriate redactions, any party may file a
renewed, properly supported motion to permanently seal the documents. If neither redacted
documents nor a renewed motion to seal are filed within thirty (30) days of entry of this Order, the
Court will unseal the documents.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the United States may file Relator’s Disclosure
Statement and all attachments thereto under seal as separate exhibits to its Statement of Interest.
These documents will be accessible only by the parties and the Court during the pendency of the
seal.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) days of entry of this Order, the
parties shall confer and attempt to agree upon appropriate redactions to the documents temporarily

3

Case 1:16-cv-01148-JAP-KK Document 149 Filed 12/16/20 Page 4 of 4

filed under seal pursuant to this Order. If the parties are able to agree upon such redactions, the
United States shall re-file the documents unsealed and with the agreed-upon redactions. If the
parties cannot agree upon appropriate redactions, any party may file a properly supported renewed
motion to permanently seal the documents. As to each document temporarily filed under seal
pursuant to this Order, if neither a redacted document nor a renewed motion to seal is filed within
thirty (30) days of entry of this Order, the Court will unseal the document at issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________________________________
KIRTAN KHALSA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4