Odom v. CVS Caremark Corporation et al

Filing 87

ORDER granting 84 MOTION to Seal filed by James D Odom. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 2/2/2016. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
James D. Odom,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CVS Caremark Corporation; CVS Rx
Services, Inc.; and South Carolina CVS
Pharmacy, LLC,
Defendants.

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

C/A No.: 3:14-456-MGL-SVH

ORDER

In this employment discrimination case, plaintiff James D. Odom (“Plaintiff”) is
suing his former employer CVS Rx Services, Inc., and its related entities CVS Caremark
Corporation and South Carolina CVS Pharmacy, LLC (“Defendants”), based on his
termination from employment. On September 11, 2014, all pretrial proceedings in this
case were referred to the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.).
This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff’s motion to file under seal
attachments to his response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. [ECF No. 84].
The court has reviewed the brief submitted on this matter. In accordance with In re
Knight Publishing Company, 743 F.2d 231 (4th Cir. 1984), the court grants the motion to
seal on a temporary basis. Because In re Knight requires the court to provide public
notice of a party’s request to seal and allow interested parties an opportunity to object,
this order temporarily grants the motion to seal until March 2, 2016. If in the interim

period any interested party wishes to object to the permanent sealing of the documents at
issue, that party may file a notice of appearance and state its objections. In the event any
objections are filed, the court will schedule a hearing on the motion to seal and hear the
arguments of all parties. Should no objections be filed by March 2, 2016, the temporary
order will automatically convert to a permanent order to seal.
The court considered less drastic alternatives to sealing the requested documents.
The court found that less drastic alternatives were not appropriate in this employment
case, as the parties have indicated that the documents at issue contain personal and
private information about CVS patients that includes names, addresses, dates of birth,
prescription numbers, drug names, and dosages, all of which constitute either “protected
health information” or “individually identifying information” under both the privacy
regulations of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act and South Carolina
state pharmacy and identity-theft statutes. The court has independently reviewed the
documents in camera and concludes that the documents do not lend themselves to
selective redaction under the facts of this case.
The court finds persuasive the arguments of counsel in favor of sealing the
documents and rejecting the alternatives.

The records contain confidential medical

information that would damage patients of CVS if disclosed. The court notes that the
litigant’s interest in nondisclosure of such proprietary information outweighs the public’s
right to access to this document. See May v. Medtronic Inc., No. CA 6:05-794-HMH,
2006 WL 1328765, *1 (D.S.C. May 15, 2006). The confidential and sensitive nature of
the medical information in the documents at issue requires that the documents be sealed.
2

Therefore, the court grants the motion to seal [ECF No. 84] in accordance with the
limitations stated herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 2, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

3