In an action brought by a doctor against his former employers, the court refused to redact from the complaint entire sentences describing the medical procedures performed and the alleged errors made during those procedures. The court felt there was no reasonable basis to believe that the descriptions of the procedures and errors could be used to identify individual non-party patients. The court did agree to redact the age, sex, and initials of the patients, and the dates of the medical procedures from the complaint ( Love v. Medical College of Wisconsin, May 31, 2016, Adelman, L.).
Background. Dr. Robert Love (Love) sued his former employers, the Medical College of Wisconsin and Froedtert Memorial Lutheran Hospital (collectively MCW), alleging violations of the federal False Claims Act and various state tort laws. On April 22, 2016, the court denied MCW’s motion to dismiss. Along with the motions to dismiss, the parties, at MCW’s behest, filed numerous motions requesting that every document on the docket, including the complaint, be sealed. The court denied the motions to seal but granted a limited redaction of the complaint (elimination of the patients’ initials) and ordered only the complaint and answers sealed by the clerk of the court. MCW then filed a motion to reconsider and two other related motions.
Motion to reconsider. MCW asked the court to reconsider and go beyond the mere elimination of the patients’ initials and redact entire sentences describing the medical procedures performed and the alleged errors that doctors made during the procedures. MCW argued that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) ( P.L. 104-191) barred disclosure of this information because it could be used to identify the individual patients. The court found that there is no reasonable basis to believe that the descriptions of the allegedly botched procedures could be used to identify the individual patients. Rather, it appeared to the court that MCW was attempting to keep negative allegations regarding some of its doctors from being publicly disclosed.
As a result, the court denied MCW’s motion for reconsideration but instead allowed MCW to submit an amended redacted version of the complaint redacting only the dates of procedures and the age and sex of patients. The court did this out of an abundance of caution for the privacy interests of the non-party patients and because, like patient initials, the information was not important to Love’s claims or the court’s decision on the motion to dismiss.
Motion to restrict pending appeal. MCW notified the court that if it does not accept its amended redacted version of the complaint, it intends to appeal the sealing issue. As a result, MCW asked the court to continue to maintain the complaint and answers under seal pending the possible appeal. The court agreed to do this as there would be no prejudice to Love.
Motion to stay. MCW also asked the court to stay all proceedings in the case pending appeal of the sealing issue if the court does not accept its amended redacted version of the complaint. The court found no good reason to do so. According to the court, the parties can proceed to discovery while the complaint and answers remain under seal pending appeal. Further, the court felt that staying litigation pending appeal would likely prejudice Love by delaying discovery and his ability to timely pursue his lawsuit.