Benitez v. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority

Filing 28

ORDER granting 18 Defendant's Motion To Seal Exhibits 1 And 5 To Its Answer. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 5/18/18. (mga)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-095-RJC-DCK
RAYMOND BENITEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG
HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, d/b/a CAROLINAS
HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, d/b/a ATRIUM
HEALTH,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on the “Defendant’s Motion To Seal
Exhibits 1 And 5 To Its Answer” (Document No. 18) filed April 30, 2018. This motion has been
referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate
review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion and the record, the undersigned
will grant the motion.
By the pending motion, Defendant seeks to seal two exhibits to its Answer…” (Document
No. 16) filed on April 30, 2018. See (Document Nos. 18 and 19). Exhibit 1 contains medical
billing records for treatment Plaintiff received from Defendant and includes confidential medical
information that is protected by statute under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act of 1996 (“HIPPA”). (Document No. 18, pp. 1-2). Exhibit 5 is the Network Participation
Agreement between the Hospital Authority and Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina from
2014 (the “BCBS-NC Agreement”) and includes confidential, commercially sensitive terms
regarding reimbursement rates for patients. Id.

1

Defendant notes that Plaintiff does not object to the sealing of Exhibit 1, but was unable to
take a position on Exhibit 5 at the time the instant motion was filed. (Document No. 18, pp. 2-3).
To date, there has been no response filed to the pending motion to seal, by Plaintiff or any nonparty, and the time to do so has lapsed. See Local Rule 7.1(e).
A party who seeks to seal any pleading must comply with Local Civil Rule 6.1. The Local
Civil Rule provides in relevant part as follows:
LCvR 6.1

SEALED FILINGS AND PUBLIC ACCESS.

(a)
Scope of Rule. To further openness in civil case
proceedings, there is a presumption under applicable common law
and the First Amendment that materials filed in this Court will be
filed unsealed. This Rule governs any party’s request to seal, or
otherwise restrict public access to, any materials filed with the Court
or used in connection with judicial decision- making. As used in
this Rule, “materials” includes pleadings and documents of any
nature and in any medium or format.
(b)
Filing under Seal. No materials may be filed under seal
except by Court order, pursuant to a statute, or in accordance with a
previously entered Rule 26(e) protective order.
(c)
Motion to Seal or Otherwise Restrict Public Access. A
party’s request to file materials under seal must be made by formal
motion, separate from the motion or other pleading sought to be
sealed, pursuant to LCvR 7.1. Such motion must be filed
electronically under the designation “Motion to Seal.” The motion
must set forth:
(1)
A non-confidential description of the
material sought to be sealed;
(2)
A statement indicating why sealing is
necessary and why there are no alternatives to filing
under seal;
(3)
Unless permanent sealing is sought, a
statement indicating how long the party seeks to have
the material maintained under seal and how the
matter is to be handled upon unsealing; and
(4)
Supporting statutes, case law, or other
authority.

2

To the extent the party must disclose any confidential information
in order to support the motion to seal, the party may provide that
information in a separate memorandum filed under seal.
(d)
Filing of an Unredacted Copy Allowed. The party seeking
to file material under seal may submit an unredacted version of the
material under seal for review by the Court along with the motion to
seal.
(e)
Public Notice. No motion to seal or otherwise restrict public
access shall be determined without reasonable public notice. Notice
is deemed reasonable where a motion is filed in accordance with
LCvR 6.1(c). Other parties, intervenors, and non-parties may file
objections and briefs opposing or supporting the motion within the
time provided by LCvR 7.1 and may move to intervene under Fed.
R.Civ.P.24. Where the Court acts before the response, any party or
non-party may move to unseal at any time.
(f)
Orders Sealing Documents. When addressing motions to
seal, the Court must consider alternatives to sealing. If the Court
determines that sealing is necessary, it will state its reasons with
findings supporting its decision. The Court will also specify
whether the sealing is temporary or permanent, and also may redact
such orders in its discretion.
L.Cv.R. 6.1 (W.D.N.C. 2018). The requirements of Rule 6.1(c)(1) through (4) have been complied
with.
As reflected in the Rule, the Court is required to consider the factors contained in Local
Civil Rule 6.1(c). The first factor is found in Local Civil Rule 6.1(c)(1), which requires that the
parties adequately describe the materials sought to be sealed.

The Rule requires “[a]

non-confidential description of the material sought to be sealed.” L.Civ.R. 6.1(c)(1). The Rule is
intended to give third-parties, including the press, fair notice of the nature of the materials sought
to be sealed. The description contained in the motion is adequate.
The Court next considers Local Civil Rule 6.1(c)(2), which requires “[a] statement as to
why sealing is necessary and why there are no alternatives to filing under seal.” L.Cv.R. 6.1(c)(2).
Such statement has been provided and is adequate.
3

As to Local Civil Rule 6.1(c)(3), there are no provisions for sealing matters beyond the life
of the case, inasmuch as case materials must be placed in the National Archives. If the parties
believe at the conclusion of the case that such materials remain sensitive, they should move the
Clerk of Court to strike any such sensitive pleadings from the official Court record.
Finally, the Court has considered Local Civil Rule 6.1(c)(4), which requires the parties to
provide citations of law supporting the relief they seek. Defendant has complied with such
provision and such request is consistent with Media General Operations, Inc. v. Buchanan, 417
F.3d 424 (4th Cir. 2005), which held as follows:
We have held that in determining whether to seal judicial
documents, a judicial officer must comply with certain procedural
requirements. Washington Post, 807 F.2d at 390. The decision to
seal documents must be made after independent review by a judicial
officer, and supported by “findings and conclusions specific enough
for appellate review.” Goetz, 886 F.2d at 65-66. If a judicial officer
determines that full public access is not appropriate, she “must
consider alternatives to sealing the documents” which may include
giving the public access to some of the documents or releasing a
redacted version of the documents that are the subject of the
government’s motion to seal. Goetz, 886 F.2d at 66.
Id. at 429; see also (Document No. 19). The proposed sealing of the exhibits in this matter appears
to be consistent with current caselaw.
Having considered all of the factors provided in Local Civil Rule 6.1(c), the Court will
grant the Motion to Seal.
CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Defendant’s Motion To Seal Exhibits 1 And 5
To Its Answer” (Document No. 18) is GRANTED.
Signed: May 18, 2018

4