Snodgrass-King Pediatric Dental Associates, P.C. et al v. DentaQuest USA Insurance Co., Inc. et al

Filing 284

MEMORANDUM & ORDER re sealed filings. On November 4, 2016 the Court will lift the seal on all documents in this case absent further filings by the parties. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 10/28/16. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(af) Modified on 10/28/2016 (af).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
SNODGRASS-KING PEDIATRIC
DENTAL ASSOCIATES, P.C., and
DAVID J. SNODGRASS,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
NO. 3:14-cv-00654
)
JUDGE CRENSHAW
v.
)
)
DENTAQUEST USA INSURANCE
)
CO., INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On September 6, 2016, the Court entered a show cause order, asking the parties to identify,
document by document, which documents should remain under seal. (Doc. No. 243.) On
September 21, 2016, Plaintiffs (“Snodgrass”) responded to the show cause order (Doc. No. 249),
and only cited the documents it does not object to remaining under seal. DentaQuest responded
with reasons why some of the documents should remain under seal. (Doc. No. 246.)
To overcome the presumption of public access in a judicial document, the “proponent of
sealing must provide compelling reasons to seal the documents and demonstrate that the sealing is
narrowly tailored to those reasons, specifically, by ‘analyz[ing] in detail, document by document,
the propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.’” Beauchamp v. Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Co., No. 15-6067, 2016 WL 3671629, at *4-5 (6th Cir. Jul. 11, 2016)
(quoting Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Nos. 15-1544, 1551, 1552, 2016
WL 3163073, at *3 (6th Cir. June 7, 2016)). Generally, “only trade secrets, information covered
by a recognized privilege (such as the attorney-client privilege), and information required by
statute to be maintained in confidence (such as the name of a minor victim of a sexual assault), is

typically enough to overcome the presumption of [public] access.” Rudd Equipment Co., Inc. v.
John Deere Construction & Forestry Co., --- F.3d ---, 2016 WL 4410575, at *4 (6th Cir. July 27,
2016) (quoting Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 546 (7th Cir. 2002)).
DentaQuest first asks for a myriad of documents to remain under seal, grouping them as
“Information and analyses concerning other providers.” This does not come close to the Shane
Group standard. First, DentaQuest does not analyze each document, but instead groups the
documents together. Second, DentaQuest claims these are trade secrets, but it does not cite any
legal authority, such as a statute or common law privilege, to support its assertion. DentaQuest
also claims that some of these documents have taxpayer identification numbers, but taxpayer
information must be redacted and thus would not justify sealing the remainder of the documents.
DentaQuest also groups in this request concerns about third parties, but it does not distinguish
whether these third parties are like the innocent third party bank customers in Knoxville News—
Sentinal, 723 F.3d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 2016), or like the third party hospitals in Shane Group. In
short, DentaQuest, the proponent of sealing, has not “analyzed in detail, document by document,
the propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.” Beauchamp, 2016 WL 3671629,
at *4-5. This request is DENIED.
DentaQuest next argues that a variety of documents reveals “DentaQuest’s confidential
business information including network development strategy and Tennessee network
development planning.” (Doc. No. 246 at 2.) Again, DentaQuest makes conclusory assertions that
the information in each of these documents constitutes trade secrets with no analysis “document
by document,” and contains no legal reasons, argument, or citations. The request to seal these
documents is DENIED.

2

DentaQuest argues that the two settlement agreements should remain under seal. There is
no reason these should remain under seal, especially when they are going to be offered into
evidence at trial in public court. This request is DENIED.
DentaQuest last asks that the Requests for Admissions and responses thereto remain under
seal because they contain confidential financial information. Again, there is no legal citation or
analysis for each document on why these should remain under seal. This request is DENIED.
For the foregoing reasons, on November 4, 2016 the Court will lift the seal on all
documents in this case absent further filings by the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3