Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 19STCV38659, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV38659    Hearing Date: September 8, 2022    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant California Physicians’ Service dba Blue Shield of California

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

Defendant’s Motion to Seal Confidential and Protected Information

            The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.  No opposition was filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

Generally, court records are presumed to be open unless confidentiality is required by law.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c).)  If the presumption of access applies, the court may order that a record be filed under seal “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, subd. (d).) 

DISCUSSION

Defendant California Physicians’ Service dba Blue Shield of California (“Defendant”) moves the court for an order sealing documents submitted in support of plaintiff David Ward’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for summary adjudication and all references made to those exhibits in Plaintiff’s supporting memorandum and separate statement.  Specifically, Defendant moves to seal (1) exhibits 2 through 7 and 10, attached to Plaintiff’s filing entitled “Plaintiff’s Evidence,” filed in support of Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication on May 6, 2022; (2) page 2, lines 20-21, page 3, lines 7-8 and 11-12, page 4, lines 8-9, page 5, lines 9-12, and page 7, lines 20-21 of the document entitled “Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication,” filed by Plaintiff May 6, 2022; and (3) page 4, lines 10-12 and 13-15, page 5, lines 15-16 and 18-21, page 6, lines 25-26, and page 8, lines 8-11, 21-22, and 24-25 of the document entitled “Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication,” filed by Plaintiff on May 6, 2022.

Defendant explains that the subject exhibits contain the following information.  First, exhibits 3, 4, and 5 contain policies and guidelines that Defendant’s utilization management vendor uses to determine coverage for various lumbar spine surgeries.  (Garrison Decl., ¶ 5.)  Defendant asserts that these exhibits contain proprietary information, and that public disclosure of these exhibits would likely result in competitive disadvantage.  (Ibid.)  Second, exhibit 2 contains Plaintiff’s medical history and treatment.  (Garrison Decl., ¶ 7.)  Third, exhibits 6 and 7 contain (1) details from the policies and guidelines used by Defendant’s utilization management vendor to determine coverage for various lumbar spine surgeries, and (2) determination letters for Plaintiff’s authorization requests.  (Ibid.)  Finally, exhibit 10 contains notes pertaining to the authorization report submitted on Plaintiff’s behalf and includes a list of surgeries that Plaintiff underwent.  (Ibid.)  Defendant’s counsel states in her declaration that the exhibits subject to this motion have been designated as confidential pursuant to the parties’ protective order.  (Allen Decl., ¶ 3.)

The court finds that (1) there exists overriding interests that overcome the right of public access to the exhibits and specified portions of Plaintiff’s filings, because they contain confidential information relating to (a) Defendant’s internal business information, including its policies and guidelines, which contains proprietary information and has been designated as confidential by Defendant and (b) Plaintiff’s medical history and treatment; (2) the overriding interests support sealing the record to preserve the confidentiality of Plaintiff’s medical history and Defendant’s internal proprietary information; (3) a substantial probability exists that the overriding interests will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored since it seals exhibits containing this information and redacts only portions of Plaintiff’s filings; and (5) there are no less restrictive means to achieve the overriding interests.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 2.550, subd. (d).)

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the court grants defendant California Physicians’ Service dba Blue Shield of California’s motion to seal.

First, the court orders that the complete, unredacted versions of the following documents shall be filed under seal: (1) exhibits 2 through 7 and 10, attached to Plaintiff’s filing entitled “Plaintiff’s Evidence,” filed in support of Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication on May 6, 2022; (2) page 2, lines 20-21, page 3, lines 7-8 and 11-12, page 4, lines 8-9, page 5, lines 9-12, and page 7, lines 20-21 of the document entitled “Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication,” filed by Plaintiff May 6, 2022; and (3) page 4, lines 10-12 and 13-15, page 5, lines 15-16 and 18-21, page 6, lines 25-26, and page 8, lines 8-11, 21-22, and 24-25 of the document entitled “Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication,” filed by Plaintiff on May 6, 2022.

Second, the court orders plaintiff David Ward to file public versions of (1) Plaintiff’s Evidence, (2) Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication, and (3) Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication, which state that the following documents and references to those documents have been sealed as follows: (1) exhibits 2 through 7 and 10, attached to Plaintiff’s filing entitled “Plaintiff’s Evidence,” filed in support of Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication on May 6, 2022; (2) page 2, lines 20-21, page 3, lines 7-8 and 11-12, page 4, lines 8-9, page 5, lines 9-12, and page 7, lines 20-21 of the document entitled “Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication,” filed by Plaintiff May 6, 2022; and (3) page 4, lines 10-12 and 13-15, page 5, lines 15-16 and 18-21, page 6, lines 25-26, and page 8, lines 8-11, 21-22, and 24-25 of the document entitled “Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication,” filed by Plaintiff on May 6, 2022.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.551 subdivision (e), the court directs the clerk to file this order, maintain the records ordered sealed in a secure manner, and clearly identify the records as sealed by this this order. 

The court further orders that no persons other than the court are authorized to inspect the sealed records.

            The court orders defendant California Physicians’ Service dba Blue Shield of California to give notice of this ruling. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  September 8, 2022

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court