1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL L.P., Case No. 22-cv-02139-AMO

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING

9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO

SEAL

10 MULTIPLAN, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 100 Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is now pending before the Court. ECF 92. Defendant 14 Altimetrik Corp. (“Altimetrik”) filed a brief in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. ECF 95. In 15 addition, Altimetrik moved to seal portions of its brief as well as certain agreements underlying 16 Plaintiff’s claims. ECF 100. This Order resolves Altimetrik’s administrative motion to seal; 17 Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is resolved in a separate order. Having read the parties’ papers and 18 carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, 19 the Court hereby rules as follows. 20 Because “courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and 21 documents, including judicial records and documents,’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 22 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 23 & n.7 (1978)), when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is 24 the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th 25 Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than 26 tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden of overcoming the 27 presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public 1 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79. 2 However, courts “must remain mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts 3 upon terms which will not unduly harm their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. 4 Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013). For that reason, records attached to motions 5 that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of a case” are not subject to the 6 strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 7 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non- 8 dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to 9 the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions 10 must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal 11 quotations and citations omitted). 12 Defendant MultiPlan represents that compelling reasons exist to keep under seal the 13 Facility Agreement between MultiPlan and Good Samaritan as well as portions of Defendants’ 14 brief opposing the instant motion to remand that quote from the Facility Agreement. MultiPlan 15 considers its participating provider agreements, including the Facility Agreement with Good 16 Samaritan, to be confidential and proprietary, particularly with respect to the contract rates and 17 other rate information, as well as to the provider-specific terms and conditions contained therein, 18 which are the result of back-and-forth negotiations between MultiPlan and Good Samaritan. 19 MultiPlan contends that its business operations and competitive advantage would suffer 20 irreparable harm should such participating provider agreements be given to or viewed by 21 MultiPlan’s business competitors or other providers with whom MultiPlan negotiates. 22 Defendant Trustmark similarly represents that compelling reasons exist to keep under seal 23 the Administrative Services Agreement between the predecessors of Trustmark and Altimetrik as 24 well as portions of Defendants’ brief opposing the instant motion to remand that quote from the 25 Administrative Services Agreement. Trustmark considers the agreement to be confidential and 26 proprietary, and the company’s business operations would suffer irreparable harm if the agreement 27 was exposed to its business competitors. 1 these materials are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d 2 at 1099. Further, because these documents contain confidential business information, the Court 3 finds good cause to seal the materials. See, e.g., Nicolosi Distrib., Inc. v. Finishmaster, Inc., No. 4 18-CV-03587-BLF, 2018 WL 10758114, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2018) (granting motion to seal 5 contracts containing proprietary and confidential business information); Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, 6 || Inc., No. 13-CV-03345-BLFUJSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015) (“Courts 7 || regularly find that litigants may file under seal contracts with third parties that contain proprietary 8 || and confidential business information.”). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the administrative 9 motion to seal. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: September 15, 2023 12 □□ oh 13

ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN

14 United States District Judge 15 16

= 17

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28