Emergency Physician Services of New York v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc.

S.D. New York

Emergency Physician Services of New York v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc.

DecidedMarch 16, 2023

Docket1:20-cv-09183

StatusUnknown

This text of Emergency Physician Services of New York v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. (Emergency Physician Services of New York v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Emergency Physician Services of New York v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ VOCUTTIETIL OOF FHEU VoItuico Taye tule O'Melveny O'Melveny & Myers LLP T: #1 212 326 2000 Times Square Tower F: +1 212 326 2061 7 Times Square omm.com New York, NY 10036-6537 APPLICATION GRANTED SO ORDERED March 15, 2023 Be ble nn eee escapellati@omm.com Honorable John G. Koetl John G. Koeltl, U.S.D.J. Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse ay G i 2 3 500 Pearl Street Southern District of New York New York, New York 10007-1312 Re: Emergency Physician Servs. of New York, et al. vy. UnitedHealth Grp., Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09183 — Motion to Redact Confidential _Metrics_and_ Information Contained in Defendants’ Objection to Magistrate Judge Netburn’s Discovery Ruling Denying Relief On Plaintiffs’ Deficient ESI Production In accordance with Rules VI.A of Your Honor’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, SDNY Local Rule 7.1(d), the SDNY’s Sealed Records Filing Instructions, and the Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order in effect in this action (the “Protective Order’) (Dkt. No. 110), Defendants UnitedHealth Group, Inc. (“UHG”), United HealthCare Services, Inc., UMR, Inc., UnitedHealthcare Service LLC, UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company, and Oxford Health Plans LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) request that the Court redact confidential metrics and information contained within Defendants’ Objections to Magistrate Judge Netburn’s Discovery Ruling Denying Relief On Plaintiffs’ Deficient ESI Production. TeamHealth Plaintiffs have previously consented to the redaction of similar information in Defendants’ prior motions in this matter, and this Court redacted identical information as requested in Defendants’ December 23, 2022 letter motion. See e.g., DN 245 and 249. Although documents “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process” are entitled to a presumption of public access, the presumption of access must be balanced against “competing considerations.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). Among the relevant countervailing factors are the “privacy interests of those resisting disclosure,” and the “nature and degree of injury” that will result from disclosure. Id. at 120. A litigant’s interest in keeping confidential its highly sensitive business and financial information is sufficient to tip the scale in favor of sealing the documents that contain such information. See GoSMILE, Inc. v. Dr. Jonathan Levine, D.M.D. P.C., 769 F. Supp. 2d 630, 649— 50 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (granting motion to seal documents containing “highly proprietary material concerning the defendants’ marketing strategies, product development, costs and budgeting”). Similarly, if the disclosure of a litigant’s confidential business information places such party at risk of competitive harm, there is compelling justification for sealing the documents containing such information. See Haley v. Teachers Ins. and Annuity Assn. of Am., 2020 WL 3618573, at *1

Century City » Los Angeles * Newport Beach * New York * San Francisco « Silicon Valley » Washington, DC Beijing « Brussels * Hong Kona » London « Seoul « Shanghai « Singapore « Tokyo

Case 1:20-cv-09183-JGK-SN Document 357 Filed 03/15/23 Page 2 of 2 O'Melveny

(S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2020) (“The sealing of documents may be justified to preserve higher values, including the need to protect an entity from competitive injury.”) (citing Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 124). The Motion contains Confidential Information, as defined in the Protective Order. The metrics include sensitive information regarding TeamHealth Plaintiffs’ business. The disclosure of this commercially sensitive information could place them at a competitive disadvantage. Accordingly, such information should be redacted. See GoSMiLE, Inc., 769 F. Supp. 2d at 649— 50. Pursuant to Paragraph 22 of the Protective Order, “[i]f a Party seeks to file unredacted Confidential Information or Attorneys’ Eyes Only information, it shall file a motion with the Court for filing under seal, unless the producing Party otherwise agrees.” Id. Therefore, in accordance with the Protective Order, Defendants hereby request that the Court grant Defendants’ request to redact specific metrics from Defendants’ Motion.

Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Ethan M. Scapellati EthanM.Scapellati, for O7MELVENY & MYERS LLP

cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ VOCUTTIETIL OOF FHEU VoItuico Taye tule O'Melveny O'Melveny & Myers LLP T: #1 212 326 2000 Times Square Tower F: +1 212 326 2061 7 Times Square omm.com New York, NY 10036-6537 APPLICATION GRANTED SO ORDERED March 15, 2023 Be ble nn eee escapellati@omm.com Honorable John G. Koetl John G. Koeltl, U.S.D.J. Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse ay G i 2 3 500 Pearl Street Southern District of New York New York, New York 10007-1312 Re: Emergency Physician Servs. of New York, et al. vy. UnitedHealth Grp., Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09183 — Motion to Redact Confidential _Metrics_and_ Information Contained in Defendants’ Objection to Magistrate Judge Netburn’s Discovery Ruling Denying Relief On Plaintiffs’ Deficient ESI Production In accordance with Rules VI.A of Your Honor’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, SDNY Local Rule 7.1(d), the SDNY’s Sealed Records Filing Instructions, and the Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order in effect in this action (the “Protective Order’) (Dkt. No. 110), Defendants UnitedHealth Group, Inc. (“UHG”), United HealthCare Services, Inc., UMR, Inc., UnitedHealthcare Service LLC, UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company, and Oxford Health Plans LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) request that the Court redact confidential metrics and information contained within Defendants’ Objections to Magistrate Judge Netburn’s Discovery Ruling Denying Relief On Plaintiffs’ Deficient ESI Production. TeamHealth Plaintiffs have previously consented to the redaction of similar information in Defendants’ prior motions in this matter, and this Court redacted identical information as requested in Defendants’ December 23, 2022 letter motion. See e.g., DN 245 and 249. Although documents “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process” are entitled to a presumption of public access, the presumption of access must be balanced against “competing considerations.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). Among the relevant countervailing factors are the “privacy interests of those resisting disclosure,” and the “nature and degree of injury” that will result from disclosure. Id. at 120. A litigant’s interest in keeping confidential its highly sensitive business and financial information is sufficient to tip the scale in favor of sealing the documents that contain such information. See GoSMILE, Inc. v. Dr. Jonathan Levine, D.M.D. P.C., 769 F. Supp. 2d 630, 649— 50 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (granting motion to seal documents containing “highly proprietary material concerning the defendants’ marketing strategies, product development, costs and budgeting”). Similarly, if the disclosure of a litigant’s confidential business information places such party at risk of competitive harm, there is compelling justification for sealing the documents containing such information. See Haley v. Teachers Ins. and Annuity Assn. of Am., 2020 WL 3618573, at *1

Century City » Los Angeles * Newport Beach * New York * San Francisco « Silicon Valley » Washington, DC Beijing « Brussels * Hong Kona » London « Seoul « Shanghai « Singapore « Tokyo

Case 1:20-cv-09183-JGK-SN Document 357 Filed 03/15/23 Page 2 of 2 O'Melveny

(S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2020) (“The sealing of documents may be justified to preserve higher values, including the need to protect an entity from competitive injury.”) (citing Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 124). The Motion contains Confidential Information, as defined in the Protective Order. The metrics include sensitive information regarding TeamHealth Plaintiffs’ business. The disclosure of this commercially sensitive information could place them at a competitive disadvantage. Accordingly, such information should be redacted. See GoSMiLE, Inc., 769 F. Supp. 2d at 649— 50. Pursuant to Paragraph 22 of the Protective Order, “[i]f a Party seeks to file unredacted Confidential Information or Attorneys’ Eyes Only information, it shall file a motion with the Court for filing under seal, unless the producing Party otherwise agrees.” Id. Therefore, in accordance with the Protective Order, Defendants hereby request that the Court grant Defendants’ request to redact specific metrics from Defendants’ Motion.

Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Ethan M. Scapellati EthanM.Scapellati, for O7MELVENY & MYERS LLP

cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Emergency Physician Services of New York v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emergency-physician-services-of-new-york-v-unitedhealth-group-inc-nysd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack