Wiwel, et al v. IBM Medical and Dental Benefit Plans for Regular Full-Time and Part-Time Employees, et al
ORDER granting 114 Motion to Seal. Counsel is reminded to read the order in its entirety for critical deadlines and information. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 9/15/2017. (Collins, S.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
TIMOTHY and SHARON WIWEL, and E.W., a )
minor by and through her parents Timothy and )
IBM MEDICAL AND DENTAL BENEFIT
PLANS FOR REGULAR FULL-TIME AND
This matter is before the Court on the Defendant’s Consent Motion to Seal (D.E. # 114)
which seeks to seal Defendant’s Supplemental Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Further Relief. (D.E. # 113; “Defendant’s Supplemental Response”). Defendant’s Supplemental
Response was filed as a proposed sealed document on September 12, 2017.
Having considered Defendant’s Motion to Seal, the arguments and authorities contained in
Defendant’s accompanying Memorandum in Support, and the parties’ pleadings and filings cited
therein, the Court finds:
1. This ERISA action centers on Plaintiffs’ application for continuing mental health care
benefits for E.W. E.W. was a minor at the time of the mental health care at issue and at
the time that this action was filed.
2. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant abused its discretion when it determined that, under the
controlling plan terms, continued 24-hour inpatient care at a residential treatment center in
Utah was no longer medically necessary for E.W. and that E.W.’s mental health condition
could be appropriately addressed in an outpatient setting within the context of an
appropriately supervised and structured living arrangement. (D.E. # 1 at ¶¶ 49, 67).
With respect to the five factors identified in Section V.G.1 of this Court’s
Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, the Court finds:
Defendant’s Consent Motion to Seal requests that the Court seal Defendant’s
Supplemental Response (D.E. # 113) in its entirety;
Consistent with L. Civ. Rule 26(a)(1) requiring the sealing of medical records,
federal regulations governing the disclosure of protected health information, 45
C.F.R. § 164.501 et seq., and the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. § 205(c)(3),
116 Stat. 2899, 2914-15 (Dec. 17, 2002), the public’s common law right of access
and the First Amendment’s presumption of access do not outweigh (1) E.W.’s right
to privacy with regard to her medical records, protected health information, and
sensitive medical information involving her mental health care treatment, (2) the
compelling governmental interest requiring the sealing of documents related to
minors in general and the sealing of sensitive medical information in particular, and
(3) public release of such information in this action would not enhance the public’s
understanding of any important historical event;
Due to the nature of Plaintiffs’ ERISA claim, Defendant’s Supplemental Response
heavily cites to, summarizes, and quotes sensitive medical information and medical
records contained in the Settled Administrative Record and the Supplement to the
Settled Administrative Record relating to E.W.’s mental health care, diagnoses, and
treatment that, if made public, could potentially cause substantial embarrassment to
The Court has considered less drastic alternatives to sealing Defendant’s
Supplemental Response, and finds that redaction would be an implausible solution
because discussion of E.W’s sensitive medical information permeates the document
and the only material remaining after redaction of the minor plaintiff’s sensitive
medical information from Defendant’s Supplemental Response would be the basic
rubric, headings, procedural history, and certificate of service, which would be
useless to parties outside this case. In this instance, only through sealing can the
Court’s policies of protecting a minor’s identity and a litigant’s medical information
Plaintiffs consent to Defendants’ Motion to Seal.
Furthermore, the public has been given sufficient notice of the request to seal through the
filing of the Defendant’s Consent Motion to Seal and supporting Memorandum on the Court’s
public docket. After providing a reasonable opportunity for members of the public to challenge
the request to seal, no challenge has been made.
For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby ALLOWS the
Defendant’s Consent Motion to Seal and ORDERS that Defendant’s Supplemental Response (D.E.
# 113) be sealed.
This the ______ day of ___________________, 2017.
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?