Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV1225, Date: 2024-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV1225    Hearing Date: January 3, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Ecure CA, LLC, v. UHC of California, et al.

CASE NO.:                22SMCV1225

MOTION:                  Motion to Seal Documents

HEARING DATE:   1/3/2024

Legal Standard

The sealing of trial court records is governed by California Rules of Court (CRC), rules 2.550 and 2.551. (Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 68.) Pleadings, motions, discovery documents, and other papers may not be filed under seal merely by stipulation of the parties—a prior court order must be obtained. (CRC, Rule 2.551(a); see H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 888.)

To seal a record, the following requirements are imposed: (1) the party must file a motion or application for an order sealing the record, which must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing; (2) the party must serve a copy of the motion on all parties who have appeared in the case; and (3) the party requesting that a record be filed under seal must lodge it with the court when the motion or application is made unless the record has previously been lodged. (CRC, Rule 2.551(b).)  

The Court must make the following express factual findings in order to seal records: (1) an overriding interest exists that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the records; (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. (CRC, Rule 2.550(d).) These findings embody constitutional requirements for a request to seal court records, protecting the First Amendment right of public access to civil trials. (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1217-1218.)

An order sealing the record must specifically state the facts that support the findings and direct the sealing of only those pages and documents or, if reasonably practicable, portions of those documents and pages, that contain the material that needs to be placed under seal, and all other portions must be included in the public file. (CRC, rule 2.550(e).) 

Once sealed, a record can only be unsealed by order of court. (CRC, Rule 2.551(h)(1).) So long as it remains under seal, all parties must refrain from filing anything not under seal that would disclose the sealed matter. (Id., Rule 2.551(c).) If a party files a new document referring to sealed matter, it must submit an unredacted version of the document under seal and a redacted one for the public record. (Id., Rule 2.551(b)(5).)

Analysis

Defendants United Healthcare Insurance Company and UnitedHealthcare Benefits Plan of California move for an order sealing certain documents filed in support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication. Specifically, Defendants seek to seal Exhibits A, E, F, G, and H to the Declaration of Nathanial J. Wood.

Counsel’s declaration demonstrates that these exhibits consist of confidential protected health information and personal identifying information of nonparty patients. This includes the names, addresses, telephone numbers, ages, dates of admission and/or discharge of patients, diagnosis codes, procedure codes, account numbers, medical records, among other sensitive medical information of the nonparty patients. Notably, this information is protected from disclosure by California and Federal law. Such sensitive information of third parties is worthy of protection and presents an overriding interest which overcomes the right of public access to the record. Without a sealing order, the privacy interests of uninvolved third parties would be prejudiced. Given the pervasiveness of the PHI and PII, and the volume of pages within the exhibits, it would be extremely burdensome to present a redacted version of the exhibits. Moreover, there is limited value to the unredacted information. Therefore, the court finds that no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest than to seal the above exhibits in their entirety.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.