D.T. v NECA/IBEW Family Medical Care Plan et al

Filing 52

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 33 Motion to Seal/Redact Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5(g) signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (TH)

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

D.T. by and through his parents and
guardians, K.T. and W.T., individually, on
behalf of similarly situated individuals,
No. 17-cv-00004-RAJ
and on behalf of the NECA/IBEW Family
Medical Care Plan
ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
NECA/IBEW FAMILY MEDICAL
CARE PLAN, THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE NECA/IBEW
FAMLY MEDICAL CARE PLAN,
SALVATORE J. CHILIA, ROBERT P.
KLEIN, DARRELL L. MCCUBBINS,
GEARY HIGGINS, LAWRENCE J.
MOTER, JR., KEVIN TIGHE, JERRY
SIMS, AND ANY OTHER
INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
NECA/IBEW FAMILY MEDICAL
CARE PLAN,

23
24
25

Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal/Redact certain
exhibits filed in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. Dkt. # 33.

ORDER - 1

1

Defendants have filed a Response, requesting leave to file under seal and redacted

2

versions of several additional documents related to the parties’ papers on Plaintiff’s

3

Motion for Class Certification. Dkt. # 51. Neither party opposes the other’s request.

4

“There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” Western

5

District of Washington Local Civil Rule (“LCR”) 5(g). “Only in rare circumstances

6

should a party file a motion, opposition, or reply under seal.” LCR 5(g)(5). Normally the

7
8
9

moving party must include “a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the
reasons for keeping a document under seal, with evidentiary support from declarations
where necessary.” LCR 5(g)(3)(B). However, pursuant to LCR 5(g), whichever party
designates a document confidential must provide a “specific statement of the applicable

10

legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, including an
11
12
13
14

explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interest that warrant the relief sought;
(ii) the injury that will result if the relief sought is not granted; and (iii) why a less
restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not sufficient.” LCR 5(g). A “good cause”
showing under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive

15

motions. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006)

16

(internal citations omitted).

17

The parties have met and conferred on the appropriate redactions, and have filed

18

the documents under seal (and redacted copies on the public docket) pending Court

19

resolution of this Motion. Dkt. # 51-2. Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion to

20

Seal/Redact in this action, Defendants’ Response, and the record on file in this case, the

21

Court finds that the parties have demonstrated good cause to file the indicated documents

22

under seal. The Court has reviewed the documents and finds that they contain sensitive

23

proprietary, personal, and medical information. The Court also finds the proposed

24
25

redacted versions of the documents, which are to be filed on the public docket, to be
reasonable.

ORDER - 2

1

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. Dkt.

2

# 33. The following documents may be filed under seal, with public versions where the

3

relevant information is redacted, pending the outcome of this litigation, at which time the

4

Court may determine that the documents will be unsealed:

5

• Exhibit B, Exhibit A2 Defendants’ Supplemental Responses to Discovery
Requests, attached to Declaration of E. Hamburger In Support of Plaintiff’s

6

Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. #38).

7
8

• Exhibit C, Excerpt of Deposition of L. Trunzo, attached to Declaration of
E. Hamburger In Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification (Dkt.

9

#38).
10

• Exhibit D, Sav-Rx Summary of Medicinal Treatments, attached to

11

Declaration of E. Hamburger In Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class

12
13

Certification (Dkt. #38).
• Exhibit E, Excerpt of Deposition of J. Hill, attached to Declaration of E.

14

Hamburger In Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification (Dkt.

15

#38).

16

• Exhibit G, Excerpt of Deposition of M. Plachta, attached to Declaration of

17

E. Hamburger In Support of Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. #38).

18

• Exhibit 6, Diagnostic Codes Denied Under Developmental Delay Exclusion

19

In Anthem Claims System, attached to Declaration of K. Burch In Support

20

of Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Motion for Class Certification

21

(Dkt. #46).

22

• Exhibit A, Defendants’ Responses to Discovery Requests, attached to
Declaration of R. Spoonemore In Support of Plaintiff’s Reply to Motion for

23

Class Certification (Dkt. #48).

24
25

• Exhibit A, Email Correspondence from J. Hill, attached to Declaration of E.
Hamburger In Support of Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. #38).

ORDER - 3

1

• Exhibit F, Foster & Foster Report, attached to Declaration of E. Hamburger
In Support of Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. #38).

2
3

• Exhibit 7, Deposition of W.T., attached to Declaration of K. Burch In

4

Support of Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Motion for Class

5

Certification (Dkt. #46).

6
7

Dated this 10th day of September, 2018.

8

10

A

11

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

9

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

ORDER - 4