CZ Services, Inc. v. Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: September 9, 2022
• Docket: 3:19-cv-04453
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CZ SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 19-cv-04453-JD

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL v. 9 Re: Dkt. Nos. 104, 113 10 ANTHEM INSURANCE COMPANIES, INC., et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 The Court has addressed the standards for sealing requests in conjunction with case filings, 14 see In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, 556 F. Supp. 3d 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2021), and that 15 decision is incorporated here. In pertinent summary, “judicial records are public documents 16 almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default.” Id. at 1107 (quoting 17 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Center 18 for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (when considering a 19 request to seal, “we start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.”) 20 (quotation omitted)). The party seeking to seal a document bears the burden of articulating 21 “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of 22 access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted). General 23 assertions of potential competitive or commercial harm are not enough to establish good cause for 24 sealing court records, and the “fact that the parties may have designated a document as 25 confidential under a stipulated protective order is also not enough to justify sealing.” Id. (citation 26 omitted). 27 Plaintiffs CZ Services, Inc. and CareZone Pharmacy LLC (CZ) filed sealing motions for 1 motions to dismiss. Dkt. No. 113. Plaintiffs say that documents from Defendants Premera Blue 2 Cross, Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City have been 3 designated “Highly Confidential -- Attorneys’ Eyes Only” pursuant to a protective order, and 4 should be redacted. Dkt. No. 104 at 2; Dkt. No. 113 at 1. 5 The Court reviewed the unredacted SAC, Dkt. No. 104-4, and declines to seal the 6 || requested portions of the SAC. “The fact that the parties may have designated a document as 7 confidential under a stipulated protective order is [] not enough to justify sealing.” In re Google 8 || Play Store Antitrust Litig., 556 F. Supp. 3d at 1107. The “default posture of public access 9 || prevails” for the SAC because neither party has demonstrated sufficient potential harms of 10 allowing the public access to the underlying complaint. Id. The Court also declines to seal the 11 requested portions of the oppositions to the motions to dismiss, Dkt Nos. 113-4, 113-6, because 12 || they reference the same material outlined in the SAC. 5 13 Plaintiffs are directed to file unredacted versions of the SAC and the opposition to the 14 || motions to dismiss on the ECF docket within seven days of the date of this order. 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 Dated: September 9, 2022

18 JAMEXJ/DONATO 19 Unite@YStates District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28