The opinion of the court was delivered by: Arthur J. Schwab United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER (DOC. NO. 175) UNSEALING PORTIONS OF DOC. NO. 133
Before the Court is Plaintiff‟s Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court‟s December 29, 2011 Order (doc. no. 175) which required Plaintiff to file on the docket (and thus make available to the public) a completely unredacted version of its Affiliation Agreement with Highmark (previously filed under seal at doc. no. 132) and a largely unredacted version of the Schedules and Exhibits attached to the Affiliation Agreement (previously filed separately under seal at doc. no. 133). See doc. no. 176.
Plaintiff‟s Motion for Partial Reconsideration is very narrow in scope. It does not take serious issue with the Court‟s Order requiring the filing of the Affiliation Agreement in an unredacted format, nor did it take serious issue with the Court‟s Order requiring that most of the Schedules and Exhibits to the Affiliation Agreement be filed in unredacted format. Id. In fact, Plaintiff complied with the December 29, 2011 Court Order (doc. no. 175) (hereinafter "Court Order 175") and filed an unredacted copy of the Affiliation Agreement and all of the Schedules and Exhibits in the format required by Court Order 175, with two exceptions -- Schedules 4.15 and 4.15(d). See doc. nos. 177 and 178. Plaintiff did not file Schedules 4.15 and 4.15(d). These omissions were made with the Court‟s permission and in accordance with this Court‟s January 5, 2012 Text Order. See January 5, 2012 Text Order requiring Plaintiff to "fully comply with [Court Order 175], except as to Schedules 4.15 and 4.15(d)."
With respect to Schedules 4.15 and 4.15(d), Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Partial Reconsideration requesting that this Court revisit those Schedules in light of its overall opinion and ruling on the issue of sealing versus "publishing" the documents at issue. See doc. no. 176. Plaintiff slightly modified its Motion for Partial Reconsideration (see doc. no. 180 -- Plaintiff‟s Motion to Withdraw a portion of its Partial Reconsideration Motion).*fn1
Intervenor, PG Publishing Co., ("Intervenor PG") filed a Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff‟s Motion for Reconsideration (see doc. no. 179). Defendant also filed a Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff‟s Motion for Reconsideration (doc. no. 181).
Counsel for the parties and Intervenor PG met and conferred on January 6, 2012, in compliance with this Court‟s January 5, 2012 Text Order, to attempt to resolve the disclosure matters with respect to Schedules 4.15 and 4.15(d). Plaintiff fully disclosed these two Schedules to counsel for Defendant and Intervenor PG as furthered required by this Court‟s January 5, 2012 Text Order. Unfortunately, counsel for the parties and Intervenor PG could not agree on either of the Schedules‟ alleged confidentiality. See the Joint Status Report filed at doc. no. 182. Thus, this matter is now ripe for decision.
The Court has previously written a set of facts pertinent to its prior determination on disclosure (Court Order 175, pp. 3-7) and those facts will not be repeated here. Although this Court writes primarily for the parties and Intervenor PG, the recent facts relevant to this decision shall be recited.
Shortly before this Court issued Court Order 175 requiring the complete disclosure of the Affiliation Agreement as well as the disclosure of the vast majority of the Schedules and Exhibits with a few, limited redactions, Intervenor Highmark filed a Notice indicating that it was about to submit the Affiliation Agreement, along with the Schedules and Exhibits, to the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance. See doc. no. 173. Highmark further indicated that prior to submitting the documents it would redact those portions it considered "highly confidential" but would make the submitted documents (in their redacted form) available on their own website. Id. The Court, in footnote 12 of Court Order 175, acknowledged Highmark‟s submission to Pennsylvania‟s Insurance Department and its posting of the redacted Affiliation Agreement and its Schedules and Exhibits, and noted that much of the material Highmark and Plaintiff had previously regarded (and alleged) as "highly confidential" was no longer confidential. This Court also noted that Highmark failed to set forth the reason(s) much of the previously "highly confidential" information had suddenly become non-confidential. See doc. no. 175, fn 12.
Court Order 175 required Plaintiff to produce the Affiliation Agreement in an unredacted format by January 5, 2012. Court Order 175 also required Plaintiff to produce the Schedules and Exhibits in an unredacted format by January 5, 2012, with the following limited exceptions: The license numbers and dates in Schedule 4.8 were to be redacted, Items 4, 5, and 6 of Schedule 4.11 were be redacted, Schedule 4.13 was to be redacted in its entirety, The dollar amounts only in Schedule 4.15 were to be redacted, Schedule 4.20(e) was to be redacted in its entirety, Schedule 4.20(g) was to be redacted in its entirety, The "not-yet-filed" potential cases in Schedule 4.22(a) were to be redacted, Schedule 6.3 was to be redacted in its entirety, and Exhibit H was to be redacted in its entirety.
On January 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed its Motion for Partial Reconsideration asking that this Court also permit Schedule 4.15 to be redacted in its entirety (instead of merely redacting the dollar amounts), and also requested permission to redact Schedule 4.15(d) in its entirety. Doc. no. 176. As noted above, this Motion for Partial Reconsideration was somewhat modified by Plaintiff in its Motion to Withdraw a portion of the Motion for Partial Reconsideration. Doc. no. 180.
The purpose of a Motion for Reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. Howard Hess Dental Laboratories Inc. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 602 F.3d 237, 251 (3d Cir. 2010), citing Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). Generally, a Motion for Reconsideration will only be granted on one of the following three grounds: (1) if there has been an intervening change in controlling law; (2) if new evidence, which was not previously available, has become available; or (3) if it is necessary to correct a clear error of law or to ...