MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Ameriprise Insurance Company
1:17-cv-24033
S.D. Fla.Jan 8, 2018Background
- Plaintiff (MSP Recovery Claims) moved to file its first amended complaint under seal, seeking to redact the identities of certain Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAOs) that assigned claims and non-assignment terms of an assignment agreement.
- Plaintiff does not seek to withhold this information from Defendant; it would provide an unredacted complaint and customer list to Defendant under a confidentiality agreement.
- Plaintiff contended the MAO identities are a confidential customer list and public disclosure would harm its business relationships and competitive efforts.
- Defendant took no position on protecting MAO identities but argued Plaintiff must still establish personal jurisdiction and disclose Medicare beneficiaries; Defendant did not oppose sealing the non-assignment contract terms.
- The court balanced the common-law right of public access against the parties’ confidentiality interests and noted discovery access for Defendant to the unredacted materials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MAO assignor identities should be sealed | Identities are a confidential customer list; public disclosure would harm business relations and competitive efforts | No position on sealing assignors; questioned basis for redaction and emphasized need for personal jurisdiction and beneficiary identities | Court granted sealing: public disclosure could harm Plaintiff and Defendant will receive unredacted materials under confidentiality |
| Whether non-assignment terms of assignment agreement should be sealed | Non-assignment contract terms are confidential/proprietary | Does not oppose sealing these terms | Court granted sealing of non-assignment terms |
Key Cases Cited
- Landmark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (U.S. 1978) (public access to judicial proceedings is a fundamental principle)
- Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001) (recognizes common-law right of access to court records and that access is not absolute)
- Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2007) (good-cause balancing test for limiting access to discovery materials)
- Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320 (11th Cir. 1992) (parties normally must identify themselves; anonymity is exceptional)