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

Filing 120

ORDER granting 110 Motion to Seal Document 109 PROPOSED SEALED Document. 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
NO. 5:15-CV-504-FL
TIMOTHY and SHARON WIWEL, and E.W., a )
minor by and through her parents Timothy and )
Sharon Wiwel,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
IBM MEDICAL AND DENTAL BENEFIT
)
PLANS FOR REGULAR FULL-TIME AND
)
PART-TIME EMPLOYEES,
)
)
Defendant.
)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Seal (D.E. # 110) which
seeks to seal the Supplement to the Settled Administrative Record and Plan Document. (D.E. #
109; “Supplemental Administrative Record”). The Supplemental Administrative Record was
filed as a proposed sealed document on August 29, 2017.
Having considered the Joint Motion to Seal, the arguments and authorities contained in
the 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)

The Joint Motion to Seal requests that the Court seal the Supplemental
Administrative Record (D.E. # 109) in its entirety;

(ii)

Consistent with Local Civil 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, the Supplemental Administrative
Record contains sensitive medical information and medical records relating to
E.W.’s mental health care, diagnoses, and treatment that, if made public, could
potentially cause substantial embarrassment to E.W.;

2

(iv)

The Court has considered less drastic alternatives to sealing the Supplemental
Administrative Record, 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 the Supplemental Administrative Record
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)

The parties have jointly moved to seal the Supplemental Administrative Record.

Furthermore, the public has been given sufficient notice of the request to seal through the
filing of the parties’ Joint 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. # 109) be sealed.

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

__________________________________________
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge

3