Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05847/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05847-11/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 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL OPPOSITION TO 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

AND EXHIBITS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 233, 236

On February 11, 2015, plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to file under seal a number 

of portions of their brief in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, as well as 

several declarations and exhibits submitted in support of the brief. Dkt. No. 215. Plaintiffs filed a 

supplemental sealing motion on February 12, 2015, and an errata to the supplemental sealing 

motion on February 13, 2015. Dkt. Nos. 236, 238. The single asserted ground for sealing is that 

the documents and portions of documents sought to be sealed reflect material designated as 

confidential by other parties. 

Blue Shield of California submitted a declaration requesting that the following items

identified for sealing by plaintiffs remain sealed: (1) page 12, lines 2-9 and 12-16 of plaintiffs’

opposition brief; and (2) Exhibits 31, 33, 34, 35, and 48 to the Lambrinos declaration. The motion 

to seal these items is GRANTED.

Aetna, Inc. submitted a declaration requesting that the following items identified for 

sealing by plaintiffs remain sealed: (1) page 3, lines 6-7; page 11, lines 10-11, 13-14, and 17-18 of 

plaintiffs’ opposition brief; (2) Exhibits 29 and 30 of the Lambrinos declaration; (3) paragraph 22 

of the Plandowski declaration. The motion to seal these items is GRANTED.

Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories Incorporated (“Quest”) submitted a declaration 

Case 3:12-cv-05847-WHO Document 248 Filed 02/24/15 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

requesting that dozens of portions of plaintiffs’ opposition brief remain sealed, as well as a 

number of exhibits to the Lambrinos declaration, and a number of paragraphs of the Plandowski 

declaration and exhibits attached thereto. 

The motion to seal these items is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. QDI’s sealing 

requests are overbroad. For example, QDI seeks to seal the entirety of paragraphs 8 through 28 of 

the Plandowski declaration on the ground that these paragraphs contain “proprietary and highly 

commercially sensitive information concerning QDI’s IPA and client pricing, pricing policies and 

strategies, competitive strategies, and revenues that would be damaging to QDI if publicly 

disclosed.” Dkt. No. 242 at 14. Several of these paragraphs or portions thereof do not appear to 

contain such information. See, e.g., Plandowski Decl. ¶¶ 8-10. QDI also seeks to seal a number of 

portions of plaintiffs’ opposition brief on the ground that they reference “highly confidential and 

commercially sensitive information concerning QDI’s competitive market strategy.” Dkt. No. 4. 

Again, several such portions do not appear to reference such information. See, e.g., Opp. at 5:9-

11, 10:15-16, 18:18. 

A party seeking to seal material related to a dispositive motion must “articulate compelling 

reasons supported by specific factual findings,” identifying the particular interests favoring 

secrecy and showing how those interests outweigh the “strong presumption” favoring disclosure. 

Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-81 (9th Cir. 2006). In general, 

compelling reasons sufficient to justify sealing exist when the materials may “become a vehicle 

for improper purposes, such as . . . to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, . . . or release 

trade secrets.” Id. at 1179. But “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a 

litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, 

compel the court to seal its records.” Id. QDI has not articulated specific facts demonstrating 

compelling reasons for sealing each of the items it seeks to seal. 

Accordingly, the motion to seal the items identified in QDI’s declaration, Dkt. No. 242, is 

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. QDI shall file an amended declaration on or before March 3, 

2015 narrowing its sealing requests and/or articulating specific facts demonstrating compelling 

reasons for sealing. Plaintiffs need not file an amended sealing motion, and Blue Shield and 

Case 3:12-cv-05847-WHO Document 248 Filed 02/24/15 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

Aetna are not required to refile their declarations. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2015

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-05847-WHO Document 248 Filed 02/24/15 Page 3 of 3