Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 23STCV12837, Date: 2024-07-09 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 23STCV12837    Hearing Date: July 9, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

On June 6, 2023, Plaintiff Jack Martin (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action by filing his Complaint against Defendant Health Net Life Insurance Company (“Defendant”) for (1) Breach of the Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (2) Violation of Civil Code Section 3428; and (3) Violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. Plaintiff is a former insured of Defendant, a health care insurer.

On May 28, 2024, Defendant filed the instant motion to seal confidential and protected information in connection with its motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed his opposition brief on June 25, 2024, and Defendant filed its reply brief on August 1, 2024.

II. Motion to Seal: DENIED, other than as to redactions.

A.    Legal Standard

Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open to public review. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c); see also Cal. Const., art. I, § 3(b)(1) [“The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business”].) “The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish: (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d); see also NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1217-1218.) “The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(1).)

B.    Court’s Determination

The Court DENIES the motion, other than as indicated below.

Defendant seeks to seal documents containing (1) Plaintiff’s protected health information and (2) Defendant’s confidential proprietary information, lodged conditionally under seal by Defendant on May 28, 2024 in connection with Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Specifically, Defendant seeks to seal Exhibits 1-3,7-18, and 21-22 of Defendant’s Appendix of Evidence in support of motion for summary judgment which include: (i) medical records, including treatment records, for procedures Plaintiff received; (ii) an authorization request and customer service notes for the disputed procedures at issue in this case; (iii) letters from Defendant and/or its authorized representatives requesting additional medical records and information; (iv) secondary opinions issued by third-party organizations specializing in spinal surgeries related to the disputed procedures at issue in this case; and (v) letters from Defendant and TurningPoint Healthcare Solutions LLC denying Plaintiff’s request for authorization for the medical procedures at issue in this case. Further, Defendant seeks to seal Exhibits 4-5 and 24-25 which includes confidential and proprietary clinical policies for the two procedures at issue in this case.

Plaintiff contends that Defndant’s motion is a pretext to seal more than what is permitted and, therefore, only Plaintiff’s protected information should be redacted, not entire exhibits. Also, as to Defendant’s proprietary information, Plaintiff contends there is no overriding interest that would require sealing the subject records because the clinical policies are not confidential since they are available to the public upon request.

            In reply, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s arguments are misplaced because Defendant filed the exhibits under seal pursuant to its statutory obligation and because the clinical policies are provided to a medical provider and an insured upon request, which does not make them publicly available. Nevertheless, Defendant provides that it is amendable to publicly re-filing its May 28, 2024 Appendix of Evidence in support of its motion for summary judgment once Plaintiff confirms the specific protected health information he believes should be redacted from those exhibits. Also, as to the clinical policies, for the limited purpose of this case, Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff’s request to unseal Exhibits 4-5 and 24-25.

Because Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff’s request to unseal Exhibits 4-5 and 24-25, the motion to seal as to these exhibits is denied as moot. The motion to seal is also denied as to exhibits 1-3, 7-18 and 21-22 provided that Plaintiff instructs Defendant as to the specific information within those exhibits that Plaintiff deems should be redacted.

III. Conclusion

The motion to seal as to these Exhibits 4-5 and 24-25 is denied as moot. The motion to seal is denied as to exhibits 1-3, 7-18 and 21-22 provided that Plaintiff instructs Defendant as to the specific information within those exhibits that Plaintiff deems should be redacted. Only the Plaintiff’s identifying information as so indicated by Plaintiff should be redacted in the new filings.