Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05847/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05847-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RHEUMATOLOGY DIAGNOSTICS 

LABORATORY, INC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AETNA, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-05847-WHO 

ORDER REGARDING OUTSTANDING 

SEALING ISSUES

Re: Dkt. Nos. 302-1, 308-2, 308-7, 320, 332

On August 12, 2015, this case was dismissed with prejudice following settlement. Dkt. 

No. 345. This order resolves several outstanding sealing issues.

1. On June 19, 2015, I issued an order regarding, among other things, Quest’s motion to 

seal portions of its brief in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and various 

attachments thereto. Dkt. No. 309. I denied the motion without prejudice with respect to the 

Regan deposition transcript, the Riedel deposition transcript, and those portions of the Thomas 

report not specifically identified in the proposed order submitted by Quest. Id. at 13-14. I gave 

plaintiffs (who had designated the materials as confidential) seven days to submit an amended 

declaration in support of sealing. Id. Plaintiffs did not submit an amended declaration. 

Accordingly, within seven days of the date of this order, Quest shall file unsealed versions of 

the Regan and Riedel deposition transcripts, and a version of the Thomas report with only 

those portions specifically identified in the proposed order submitted by Quest redacted. 

2. In the same June 19, 2015 order, I denied with prejudice plaintiffs’ motion to seal 

(1) the reply expert report of Greg Regan except for those portions specifically identified in the 

declaration submitted by Quest, (2) excerpts from the Regan deposition transcript, (3) portions of 

plaintiffs’ reply brief in support of their motion for summary judgment, except for those portions 

specifically identified in the declarations submitted by Aetna and Quest. Dkt. No. 309 at 14. I gave 

Case 3:12-cv-05847-WHO Document 346 Filed 08/25/15 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

plaintiffs seven days to file properly redacted versions of these documents. Id. Plaintiffs did not do 

so. Plaintiffs shall file properly redacted versions of the documents within seven days of the date 

of this order.

3. In the same June 19, 2015 order, I also denied without prejudice Quest’s motion to seal its 

“Request for Additional Subject to be Addressed at the June 10, 2015 Hearing” and gave plaintiffs 

(who had designated the underlying information as confidential) seven days to submit a declaration in 

support of sealing. Id. at 15 n.5. Plaintiffs did not do so. Accordingly, the Clerk shall UNSEAL the 

document, located at docket number 302-1.

4. On June 17, 2015, Quest moved to seal portions of its “Brief Regarding Plaintiffs 

Communications with Fair Laboratory Practices Associates” and one of the attached exhibits. Dkt. 

No. 308. The only stated basis for sealing was that plaintiffs had designated the underlying 

information as confidential, but plaintiffs did not submit a declaration in support of sealing. 

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, and the Clerk shall UNSEAL the 

documents, located at docket numbers 308-2 and 308-7.

5. On July 2, 2015, Quest moved to seal all or portions of seven exhibits attached to its 

motions in limine. Dkt. No. 320. Quest moved to seal three of the exhibits on its own behalf and four 

of the exhibits on plaintiffs’ behalf. Id. Plaintiffs did not file a declaration in support of sealing. This 

motion is GRANTED with respect to the exhibits (or portions thereof) specifically identified in the 

proposed order submitted by Quest, located at docket number 320-1. It is DENIED WITH 

PREJUDICE with respect to all other documents sought to be sealed. Quest shall file properly 

redacted versions of the documents within seven days of the date of this order.

6. On July 10, 2015, plaintiffs moved to seal portions of its brief in opposition to Quest’s 

motions in limine and all or portions of several attached exhibits. Dkt. No. 332. The only stated basis 

for sealing was that Quest or third-parties had designated the underlying information as confidential. 

Id. On July 14, 2015, Aetna filed a declaration in support of sealing Exhibit 8 to plaintiffs’ opposition 

brief. Dkt. No. 334. On the same date, Quest filed a declaration in support of sealing all or portions of 

Exhibits 2 and 8-11. Dkt. No. 335. This motion is GRANTED with respect to Exhibits 2 and 8-11 or 

the portions thereof specifically identified in the proposed order submitted by Quest, located at docket 

Case 3:12-cv-05847-WHO Document 346 Filed 08/25/15 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

number 335-1. It is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE with respect to all other documents sought to be 

sealed. Plaintiffs shall file properly redacted versions of the documents within seven days of the 

date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2015

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-05847-WHO Document 346 Filed 08/25/15 Page 3 of 3