Wiwel, et al v. IBM Medical and Dental Benefit Plans for Regular Full-Time and Part-Time Employees, et al

Filing 119

ORDER granting 107 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 9/18/2017. (Collins, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
Case No. 5:15-cv-504
TIMOTHY and SHARON WIWEL, and
E.W., a minor, by and through her parents
Timothy and Sharon Wiwel,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
IBM MEDICAL AND DENTAL BENEFIT
PLANS FOR REGULAR FULL-TIME
AND PART-TIME EMPLOYEES,
Defendant.
_______________________________________
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Consent Motion to Seal (D.E. # 107),
which seeks to seal Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Response in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Further Relief (D.E. # 106; “Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Response”). Plaintiffs’ Supplemental
Response was filed as a proposed sealed document on August 29, 2017.
Having considered Plaintiffs’ Consent Motion to Seal, the arguments and authorities
contained in Plaintiffs’ 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).
3. 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:
(i)

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal requests that the Court seal Plaintiffs’ Supplemental
Response (D.E. # 106) in its entirety;

(ii)

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;

(iii)

Due to the nature of Plaintiffs’ ERISA claim, Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Response
heavily cites to, summarizes, and quotes sensitive medical information and
medical records contained in the Administrative Record and Supplemental
Administrative Record relating to E.W.’s mental health care, diagnoses, and
treatment that, if made public, could potentially cause substantial embarrassment

2

to E.W.;
(iv)

The Court has considered less drastic alternatives to sealing Plaintiffs’
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 Plaintiffs’ 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 be fulfilled;

(v)

Defendant consents to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal.

Furthermore, the public has been given sufficient notice of the request to seal through the
filing of the Plaintiffs’ 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
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal and ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Response (D.E. # 106) be
sealed.

This the ______ day of ___________________, 2017.
18th
September

__________________________________________
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge

3