establishing that business documents labeled “proprietary” and “confidential,” when considered in light of the facts of that case, satisfied the collateral order doctrine, allowing for review of the denial of a confidentiality order sought by the originator of those documents
How later courts described this case
- establishing that business documents labeled “proprietary” and “confidential,” when considered in light of the facts of that case, satisfied the collateral order doctrine, allowing for review of the denial of a confidentiality order sought by the originator of those documents
- pursuant to collateral order exception, we reviewed order denying motion for confidentiality order to prevent dissemination of information that was in the nature of trade secrets and was protected by constitutional right to privacy
- “there is no question that if the documents which have been disclosed are in turn disseminated ,.: appellate review of the issue will be moot because such dissemination cannot be undone”
- granting collateral review of an order denying a motion seeking to protect an HMO’s proprietary trade secrets
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by People v. Thain, 24 Misc. 3d 377 (2009)
dings are relevant to a Martin Act investigation.2 Other cases cited by the intervenors in support of their trade secret claim do not stand for the principles of law for which they have been cited; they are either mischaracterizations of dicta as holdings or preliminary findings about a likelihood of success on a preliminary injunction application.3 The court’s decision in Dibble v Penn State Geisinger Clinic, Inc. (…
The opinion
Dissenting opinion by
BECK, J.
¶ 1 I respectfully dissent. Although the records in question arguably fall into the definition of a trade secret, I believe that based on policy reasons appellants should not be entitled to an order of confidentiality.
¶2 HMOs are complex businesses. In the instant case, if the business involved were a corporation making widgets or one selling storm windows I would agree with the majority’s analysis. But the business of the HMO is different. It delivers health care services, vital and necessary to the well being of all citizens. Therefore I view the majority’s public policy analysis as too narrow. What price does the general public pay to protect the confidentiality of the internal operation of an HMO? Is safeguarding the secrets of appellants internal operation, the revelation of which might possibly give another HMO an economic advantage, more important than our citizens’ need to know about the internal operation?
¶ 3 Information regarding an HMO’s managed care procedures, including the *873 compensation of participating physicians, salary/bonus incentive procedures, and the hiring and retention polices should be made available to the public whether for litigation or other purposes. All of the foregoing is material information that may affect a patient’s health care interests. I believe that a patient has a need to know that an HMO is offering financial incentives that can affect a doctor’s medical judgment by penalizing doctors for authorizing too many referrals and rewarding them financially by withholding specialized care. Health care decisions involve matters of life and death. A patient relies on a doctor’s advice about his or her treatment and should know whether such advice is influenced by self-serving financial considerations created by the HMO. I believe a patient has an interest in making an informed choice about his health care choices, and that such an interest trumps the HMO’s interest in protecting the confidentiality of the documents at issue in this case. Accordingly, I dissent.