Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 19STCV30239, Date: 2024-11-25 Tentative Ruling

 



 




Case Number: 19STCV30239    Hearing Date: November 25, 2024    Dept: 74

The Wonderful Company v. Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company, et al.

Defendant Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company’s Motion to Seal

 

BACKGROUND 

This action arises out of a contract dispute. On August 26, 2024, Anthem filed this motion to seal portions of TWC’s opposition to defendant LPCH’s Motion for Summary Judgement.

 

LEGAL STANDARD

Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open to the public. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (c).) Consequently, pleadings, motions, evidence, and other papers may not be filed under seal merely by stipulation of the parties; rather, a prior court order is necessary. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subd. (a).)  

 

The governing rule here is Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(d) which states “that 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; 
  1. The overriding interest supports sealing the record; 
  1. A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; 
  1. The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and 
  1. No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” 

If the court fails to make the required findings, the order is deficient and cannot support sealing. (Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.) Sanctions may be imposed for overboard requests to seal. (Id. at p. 500.)  

 

DISCUSSION

              California law recognizes a constitutional right of access to court proceedings and court documents because the public has an interest in observing and assessing the performance of the judicial system.  (In Re Marriage of Tamir (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 1068, 1078; see also McNair v. NCAA (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 25, 31.)

            The first step to seal records within a civil case requires the movant to identify an interest that overcomes the right of public access.  Anthem identifies three categories of confidential information: (1) Sensitive financial information and proprietary business information related to Anthem’s services agreement with Plaintiff; (2) Sensitive financial information related to the Anthem CME Agreement with LPCH; and (3) Personally identifiable health information of minors.

With respect to the first and second category of financial information and proprietary business information, Anthem argues that it will suffer prejudice if the information from the Administrative Services Agreement and the CME were revealed because they contain sensitive business and financial information.  The Court finds that Defendant’s privacy interest in confidential and proprietary business, including sensitive financial information, overrides the public right of access.  Anthem has a right to seal documents containing business procedures and other proprietary information.  (McGaun v. Endovascular Technologies, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 974, 988-989.)

With respect to the third category of information, personally identifiable health information of non-party minors, Anthem argues that personal health information is protected by an overriding interest in privacy.  The Court finds that the minor patients’ interest in personal health information overrides public right of access.  Anthem has a right to seal documents containing sensitive medical information.  (Ruiz v. Podolsky (2010) 50 Cal.4th 838, 850.)

The proposed sealing includes portions of the Exhibits in the Ashely Milnes and Georgann Edford’s Declarations, portions of Georgann’s Declaration, portions of TWC’s separate statement, portions of TWC’s evidentiary objections, and portions of TWC’s evidence in support of the Opposition of LPCH’s Motion for Summary Judgement.  These designations are narrowly tailored to cover information regarding the Administrative Services Agreement, CME agreement, and the personally identifiable information of non-party minors.  The court agrees that no less restrictive means exists. 

Therefore, the motion is granted.

 

CONCLUSION

             The court grants Defendant’s motion to seal.

            The court will sign without modification the proposed sealing order filed on August 26, 2024.

            Defendant shall give notice.