DRUDING v. CARE ALTERNATIVES

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

VICTORIA DRUDING, BARBARA BAIN, : LINDA COLEMAN, AND RONNIE O’BRIEN, : CIVIL ACTION : v. : 08-2126 : CARE ALTERNATIVES, INC. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 3rd day of March, 2022, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant, Care Alternatives, Inc.’s Unopposed Motion to Redact Portions of the May 26, 2021 Hearing Transcript Before the Court (ECF No. 245) is GRANTED, and those portions of the said hearing transcript found on page 45, line 11 and page 46, line 2 containing the name of a patient, may be redacted by the Defendant.1 BY THE COURT:

/s/ Juan R. Sanchez _______________________ Juan R. Sánchez, C.J.

1 In so holding, the Court finds the identity of Defendant’s patient is private and protected health information under both the Protective Order entered by the parties in this case and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-6 and could be compromised and breached in the event of public disclosure. The Court further finds redaction of the name only to be the least restrictive means of protecting this information and the patient’s privacy. Insofar as the parties agree redaction is appropriate, the motion is granted. See, Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599 (1977) (recognizing that individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters has constitutional dimensions) and Doe v. Delie, 257 F.3d 309, 315 (3d Cir. 2001)(holding that “medical records which may contain intimate facts of a personal nature are well within the ambit of materials entitled to privacy protection”); U.S.D.C.N.J. Local Civil Rule 5.3(c), (g).