Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCV30239, Date: 2025-05-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV30239    Hearing Date: May 28, 2025    Dept: 74

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

Motion to Seal Portions of Anthem’s Trial Brief

BACKGROUND 

This action arises out of a contract dispute.

On August 22, 2019, plaintiff The Wonderful Company LLC (Plaintiff) filed a complaint on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, against defendants Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company (Anthem) and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Standard (LPCH) and Does 1-100 (collectively Defendants). The complaint alleged six causes of action: (1) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (3) Violation of the Cartwright Act (Bus. & Prof Code, § 16720, et seq.), (4) Unreasonable Restraint of Trade (Bus. & Prof Code, § 16720, et seq.), (5) Combination to Monopolize in Violation of the Cartwright Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16720, et seq.), and (6) Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et. seq.¿¿

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; 

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.” 

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

The Court has previously ruled and issued guidance to the parties regarding sealing.  For the purpose of trial, the Court finds that parties have a limited privacy interest in sealing reference to Anthem’s contracted chargemaster amounts with LPCH.  Additionally, the Court has ruled that the minor children have a privacy interest regarding the specific medical care the minors received.  In accordance with these findings, the Court assesses the below motions to seal.  

Reviewing the proposed sealing of Anthem’s trial brief, the Court does not find any portions of the proposed sealing which requires sealing.  Therefore, the Court denies Anthem’s Motion to Seal its Trial Brief.

Motion to Seal Portions of the Amended Joint Trial Binder

TWC requests to seal large portions of the Trial Binder which extends beyond the necessary scope.  The Court advises TWC that the trial binder does not leave the possession of the Court and thus sealing of the Trial Binder is unnecessary.

Motion to Seal Portions of Its Opposition to Anthem’s Motion in Limine No. 5 and 6

Opposition to Motion in Limine No. 5

            The Court grants TWC’s sealing of its Opposition to Anthem’s Motion in Limine No. 5:

• 2:15 – “type of [] J.J.”
• 3:11 – “followed its [] claims”
• 3:15 – “his [] procedure”
• 3:17-18 – “notice of this [] claim … received the []”
• 4:15-17 – “JJ’s []… received a []. … received a [] on the same”
• 5:7 – “a []; there is nothing”
• 6:1-2 – “received a []. Both”

The Court denies TWC’s request to seal Exhibit 1, 2, and 3.  TWC fails to narrowly tailor the sealing.  TWC requests the Court seal large swaths of the email communications, much of which extends beyond the necessary scope. 

Opposition to Defendants Joint Motion in Limine No. 6

            The Court grants TWC’s sealing of its Opposition to Defendants’ Joint Motion in Limine No. 6:

·         3:8 – “[] of billed charges”

Motion to Seal Portions of Motions in Limine Nos. 8-11

Motion in Limine No. 8

            The Court grants TWC’s sealing of Motion in Limine No. 8:

·         1:14 – “needed [] that ultimately”

·         2:10 – “[], standard of care”

·         2:18:– “[] and the need to”

·         3:4-8 – “overview of []… occurrence of [] in newborns… pediatric [] patients ... pediatric [] patients… pediatric [] patients… pediatric WAS patients”

·         3:13-15 – “opinion about [] and transportation for [] … some of the [] and what”

·         5:15 – “ treatment of [] pediatric”

·         7:2 – “from a [], and the rarity”

·         8:2 – “needed a [], or needed”

·         8:24-26 – “from their []. This case … pediatric [] does nothing”

Exhibit 1 – Declaration of Laura C. Hurtado

·         7:19-22 – “overview of [],… occurrence of [], pediatric [] patients; pediatric [] patients; pediatric [] patients.” 

·         8:21 – “[] pediatric patients”

·         9:18-22 – “overview of [],… occurrence of [], pediatric [] patients; pediatric [] patients; pediatric [] patients; pediatric [] patient.” 

Exhibit 2 – Deposition Transcript of Dr. Berg

·         41:5 – “for a [], not to be”

Exhibit 3 – Deposition Transcript of Gregory M. Enns, M.B.

·         30:7-8 – “understanding of [] and the need”

·         30:12 – “of [] of IC?”

·         33:15-16 – “able to describe [] to the jury”

·         33:22 – “[] and educate”

·         40:12 – “opinion on [],”

·         40:24 – “[] not only focuses”

·         41:3 – “on what [] really means”

Exhibit 5 – Deposition Transcript of Ami Shah, M.D.

·         16:15-20 – “opinion about [] and [], the complications of [], … some of the [] and what the side effects”

The Court denies any sealing of Exhibit 4 of Motion in Limine No. 8, the Deposition Transcript of Kevin Kuo, M.D.

Motion in Limine No. 9

The Court denies TWC’s proposed sealing for the Motion in Limine No. 9 and the motion’s exhibits, TWC falls to narrowly tailor the sealing, requesting that the Court seal pages of documents with no precision.

Motion in Limine No. 10

·         3:12 – “Copy of [] Report 010219”

Exhibit 4 – Letter to A. Selesnick

·         Par. 2, Line 7 – “how [] claims are submitted”

Motion in Limine No. 11

            The Court grants TWC’s sealing of:

·         3:25-26 – “related to [] claims; (ii) … relating to [] claims”

·         4:23 – “experience as a [] nurse”

·         5:2 – “charges for [] testing”

·         5:4 – “reimbursed for [] testing”

·         5:8-10 – “results of the [] testing before the [] occurred… resulted of the [] testing before the []?”

·         7:4-6 – “such as [] testing, … patient had [] testing”

·         7:15 – “experience as a [] nurse”

Exhibit 1 – Initial Expert Disclosure

·         6:11 – “[] claims”

·         6:13 – “[] claims”

The Court denies TWC’s request to seal exhibit 2.  TWC fails to narrowly tailor the sealing, requesting that the Court seal pages of documents with no precision.

Motion to Seal Portions of Its Reply in Support of Motion in Limine No. 9

               The Court grants TWC’s sealing of TWC’s Reply in Support of Motion in Limine No. 9:

·   6:2-3 – “for [] services… agreement for [] services.”

·   6:22 – “on the [] CDM Limitation”

·   6:25 – of the [] limit”

               The Court denies TWC’s request to seal the Joint Exhibit List.  TWC fails to narrowly tailor the sealing.