# Duff v. Centene Corporation

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · August 8, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10380628

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** August 8, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10380628

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

MISTY DUFF, et al.,

Plaintiffs,
Case No. 1:19-cv-750
v. JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE

CENTENE CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ Joint Motion
to File Under Seal the Deposition Transcript of Natalie Lukaszewicz (“Mot. to Seal
Lukaszewicz Dep.,” Doc. 34) and the parties’ Joint Motion to File Under Seal the
Expert Report of Adam Block, Ph.D. (“Mot. to Seal Block Rep.,” Doc. 35). For the
reasons set forth more fully below, the Court GRANTS the parties’ Motion regarding
the Lukaszewicz deposition (Doc. 34), but DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the
parties’ Motion regarding the expert report of Dr. Block (Doc. 35).
LAW AND ANALYSIS
The parties request permission to file under seal the transcript of, and exhibits
to, the Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(B)(6) deposition of Natalie Lukaszewicz, corporate
representative for Defendants Centene Corporation, Centene Management
Company, LLC, and Buckeye Community Health Plan, Inc. The parties jointly argue
that these documents warrant seal because Lukaszewicz’s deposition discusses
“internal company policies and procedures,” including “the computer system that
handles contracts between the company and health care providers, the computer
system that handles approval and denials of insurance claims, and the computer
system that handles the provider directory.” (Mot. to Seal Lukaszewicz Dep., Doc. 34,
#476). As for the exhibits, the parties insist that those contain “confidential business

records,” such as “internal policy and procedure on Network Development &
Contracting (exhibit 10); internal network adequacy geography maps (exhibit 11);
Defendants’ network adequacy spreadsheets including listings of providers under
contract (exhibit 12 native excel spreadsheet); internal policy and procedure on
Provider Data and Analytics (exhibit 16).” (Id.).
The parties also request, for seemingly similar reasons, permission to file
under seal the expert report of Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Adam Block. (Mot. to Seal Block

Rep., Doc. 35, #479). According to the parties, this report contains “internal business
practices and procedures relating to [Defendants’] health insurance products in Ohio,
including [their] network with health care providers in Ohio, as well as [their] fraud
prevention techniques.” (Id. at #479–80).
A district court’s decision to seal court records is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. Beauchamp v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 658 F. App’x 202, 207 (6th

Cir. 2016) (citing Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299,
306 (6th Cir. 2016)). But in the sealing context, that “decision is not accorded the
deference that standard normally brings.” Id. To avoid abusing its discretion, a
district court faced with a motion to seal must “set forth specific findings and
conclusions ‘which justify nondisclosure to the public.’” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 306
(quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C, 710 F.2d 1165, 1176 (6th Cir.
1983)).
A district court is under an independent obligation, which exists regardless of

any agreement or disagreement among the parties, to determine whether sealing is
warranted. See Proctor [sic] & Gamble Co. v. Ranir, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-185, 2017
WL 3537195, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 17, 2017) (“A movant’s obligation to provide
compelling reasons justifying the seal exists even if the parties agree the filings
should be sealed, because litigants cannot waive the public’s First Amendment and
common law right of access to court filings.” (citing Rudd Equip. Co. v. John Deere
Constr. & Forestry Co., 834 F.3d 589, 595 (6th Cir. 2016))).

In response to a motion seeking sealing, this Court must determine whether
the party moving for a seal overcomes the “strong presumption in favor of openness.”
Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1179. The Court must then justify “why the
interests in support of nondisclosure are compelling, why the interests supporting
access are less so, and why the seal itself is no broader than necessary.” Shane Grp.,
825 F.3d at 306 (citing Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1176). And as the Sixth

Circuit has repeatedly cautioned, “only the most compelling reasons can justify
non-disclosure of judicial records.” In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig., 927 F.3d 919,
940 (6th Cir. 2019) (brackets and citation omitted). On top of this, the Court must
ensure that any sealing order be “narrowly tailored” to serve the reason asserted.
Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305. To meet this narrow tailoring requirement, the moving
party must “analyze in detail, document by document, the propriety of secrecy,
providing reasons and legal citations.” Id. at 305–06 (quoting Baxter Int’l v. Abbott
Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 548 (7th Cir. 2002)). So a motion to seal must address each
document the moving party wants to seal or redact.

Courts have recognized that a litigant’s interest in protecting sensitive
business information whose disclosure could result in competitive disadvantage can
be sufficient to support sealing. See Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., Case
No. 1:11-cv-871, 2017 WL 4168290, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 20, 2017) (recognizing
interest in sealing “confidential information that would otherwise allow competitors
an inside look at a company’s business strategies”); Morris v. Tyson Chicken, Inc., No.
4:15-CV-00077-JHM, 2020 WL 3442177, at *2 (W.D. Ky. June 23, 2020) (denying

motion to unseal documents that contain “confidential business information that
could harm [defendant’s] competitive standing”). Such information can include an
insurance company’s underwriting guidelines. See Kinsale Ins. Co. v. JDBC Holdings,
Inc., No. 3:20-CV-8, 2021 WL 2773002, at *5–6 (N.D. W. Va. Mar. 31, 2021) (sealing
guidelines that disclose “overall strategy and instructions for underwriting risks”);
Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Nelson, CASE NO. C19-5095RBL, 2020 WL 3488152, at *2

(W.D. Wash. June 26, 2020) (granting motion to seal insurance company
underwriting guidelines).
In short, under Shane Group, the Court must determine whether the asserted
competitive interests are compelling, whether the interests served by sealing this
information outweigh the value of public disclosure, and whether the seal is narrowly
tailored to protect those privacy interests. The Court undertakes this analysis
separately for each motion.
With respect to the parties’ first motion, which requests permission to file

under seal the deposition of Natalie Lukaszewicz and the exhibits thereto, the Court
concludes that the parties have identified a compelling interest that outweighs the
value of public disclosure. The deposition the parties seek to seal includes, among
other things, the technical aspects of Defendants’ claims decision processes.
Moreover, the exhibits include copies of written internal procedures explaining
Defendants’ internal standards for network adequacy, as well as detailed charts
illustrating provider coverage, including how far members in any given county must

travel to reach a particular type of care provider. This information is sufficiently
specific and detailed that its disclosure could harm Defendants’ competitive standing.
Cf. Morris, 2020 WL 3442177, at *2; Kinsale, 2021 WL 2773002, at *5–6.
The Court also determines that Defendants’ compelling competitive interest in
sealing its sensitive business information outweighs the public’s interest in
disclosure. Shane Group articulates several reasons why the public might have an

interest in an open review of a court’s docket materials. For example, a public docket
ensures the public’s right to guard against corruption and the public’s right to be on
notice about what is and what is not a violation of law. Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305.
Likewise, the public may have a legitimate interest in knowing the basis for the
Court’s decision in a given case. See Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1180 (“The
public has a strong interest in obtaining the information contained in the court
record.”).
Here, Defendants’ internal policies and procedures regarding network

adequacy are less integral to the case than are Defendants’ outward representations
about that adequacy. Additionally, the parties request to file the deposition and
exhibits under seal for purposes of citation in upcoming class certification briefing.
Such briefing is not concerned with ultimate liability, but with whether the instant
suit is amenable to treatment as a class action. Given the competitive interests
outlined above, the Court finds, at least at this stage, that the public’s interest in
disclosure does not outweigh the parties’ interest in sealing.

The final issue the Court must address is Shane Group’s narrow-tailoring
requirement. The parties request permission to file the Lukaszewicz deposition and
associated exhibits under seal in their entirety. Having reviewed these materials, the
Court concludes that the references to Defendants’ sensitive business information is
pervasive throughout, such that it would be impracticable to cull any portions that
do not contain such information. As such, the Court GRANTS the parties’ Joint

Motion File Under Seal the Deposition Transcript of Natalie Lukaszewicz (Doc. 34).
Turning to the parties’ second motion, which requests permission to file under
seal the expert report of Dr. Adam Block, the Court comes to a different conclusion.
Having reviewed the report in camera, the Court struggles to identify the portions
discussing Defendants’ “internal business practices and procedures” or their “fraud
prevention techniques.” (Mot. to Seal Block Rep., Doc. 35, #479–80). Rather, the
report overwhelmingly cites public sources, including state insurance regulators’
websites, online newspaper articles, and academic journals. The report does cite the
Lukaszewicz deposition on three occasions, but even these citations make only
general reference to company policies and practices. Thus, the Court concludes that,
with respect to the expert report of Dr. Block, the parties have not identified a
sufficiently specific compelling interest to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure.
As such, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the parties’ Joint Motion to
File Under Seal the Expert Report of Adam Block, Ph.D. (Doc. 35).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the parties’ Joint Motion to File
Under Seal the Deposition Transcript of Natalie Lukaszewicz (Doc. 34). The Court
DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the parties’ Joint Motion to File Under Seal the
Expert Report of Adam Block, Ph.D. (Doc. 35). As to the latter, the parties may renew
their request for a seal, explaining in more detail, if they can, why Dr. Block’s report
warrants sealing under the standards set forth above. i

SO ORDERED
August 8, 2022
DATE DOUGLAS R. COLE \
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10380628. Public record. Not legal advice.