Wiwel, et al v. IBM Medical and Dental Benefit Plans for Regular Full-Time and Part-Time Employees, et al
Filing
124
ORDER granting 122 . The Court hereby ALLOWS the Plaintiffs Motion to Seal and ORDERS that Plaintiffs Reply 121 be sealed. Counsel is reminded to read the order in its entirety for critical deadlines and information. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 9/21/2017. (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. # 122),
which seeks to seal Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendant’s Sealed Supplemental Response in
Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Further Relief (D.E. # 121; “Plaintiffs’ Reply”). Plaintiffs’
Reply was filed as a proposed sealed document on September 19, 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’ Reply (D.E. #
121) 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’ Reply 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 to E.W.;
2
(iv)
The Court has considered less drastic alternatives to sealing Plaintiffs’ Reply, 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’ Reply 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’ Reply (D.E. # 121) be sealed.
21st
September
This the ______ day of ___________________, 2017.
__________________________________________
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge
3
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?