Notice | Filed: July 23, 2026
| Entered: July 23, 2026
Women's Recovery Center, LLC v. Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company et al
Other Statutory Actions | California Central
Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123)
Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Stephen Ross Garrett counsel for Counter Claimants Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company, Anthem Health Plans of Kentucky Inc, Anthem Health Plans of Virginia Inc, Anthem HealthChoice Assurance, Inc., Anthem Inc., Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., BCBSM Inc, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Connecticut, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee Inc, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Wisconsin, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Georgia Inc, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, Blue Cross of California, Carefirst Bluechoice Inc, Carefirst of Maryland Inc, Community Insurance Company, HMO Missouri Inc, HealthKeepers Inc, Healthy Alliance Life Insurance Company, Premera Blue Cross, Rocky Mountain Hospital and Medical Service Inc, The Anthem Companies of California, The Anthem Companies, Inc., USAble Mutual Insurance Company, Defendants Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company, Anthem Health Plans Inc, Anthem Health Plans of Kentucky Inc, Anthem Health Plans of Virginia Inc, Anthem HealthChoice Assurance, Inc., Anthem Inc., Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., BCBSM Inc, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Connecticut, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee Inc, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Wisconsin, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Georgia Inc, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts Inc, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nebraska Inc, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Rhode Island, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of South Carolina, Blue Cross of California, Blue Shield of Florida Inc, Carefirst Bluechoice Inc, Carefirst of Maryland Inc, Community Insurance Company, HMO Louisiana Inc, HMO Missouri Inc, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthKeepers Inc, Healthy Alliance Life Insurance Company, Premera Blue Cross, Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oregon, Regence Blue Shield, Regence BlueShield of Washington, Rocky Mountain Hospital and Medical Service Inc, The Anthem Companies of California, The Anthem Companies, Inc., USAble Mutual Insurance Company. Adding Stephen Ross Garrett as counsel of record for Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs as listed for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs. (Attorney Stephen Ross Garrett added to party Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company(pty:cc), Attorney Stephen Ross Garrett added to party Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company(pty:dft), Attorney Stephen Ross Garrett added to party Anthem Health Plans Inc(pty:dft), Attorney Stephen Ross Garrett added to party Anthem Health Plans of Kentucky Inc(pty:cc), Attorney Stephen Ross Garrett added to party Anthem Health Plans of Kentucky Inc(pty:dft), Attorney Stephen Ross Garrett added to party Anthem Health Plans of Virginia Inc(pty:dft), Attorney Stephen Ross Garrett added to party Anthem Health Plans of Virginia Inc(pty:cc), Attorney Stephen Ross Garrett added to party Anthem HealthChoice Assurance, Inc.(pty:dft), Attorney Stephen Ross Garrett added to party Anthem HealthChoice Assurance, Inc.(pty:cc), Attorney Stephen Ross Garrett added to party Anthem Inc.(pty:cc), Attorney Stephen Ross Garrett added to party Anthem Inc.(pty:dft), Attorney Stephen Ross Garrett added to party Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc.(pty:cc), Attorney Stephen Ross Garrett added to party Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc.(pty:dft), Attorney Stephen Ross Garrett added to party BCBSM Inc(pty:cc), Attorney Stephen Ross Garrett added to party BCBSM Inc(pty:dft), Attorney Stephen Ross Garrett added to party Blue Cross Blue Shield of Connecticut(pty:cc), Attorney Stephen Ross Garrett added to party Blue Cross Blue Shield of Connecticut(pty:dft), Attorney Stephen Ross Garrett added to party Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois(pty:cc), Attorney Stephen Ross Garrett added to party Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois(pty:dft), Attorney Stephen Ross Garrett added to party Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota(pty:dft), Attorney Stephen Ross Garrett added to party Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma(pty:cc), Attorney Stephen Ross Garrett added to party Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma(pty:dft), Attorney Stephen Ross Garrett added to party Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee Inc(pty:cc), Attorney Stephen Ross Garrett added to party Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee Inc(pty:dft), Attorney Stephen Ross Garrett added to party Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas(pty:dft), Attorney Stephen Ross Garrett added to party Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas(pty:cc)... (truncated)
Order | Filed: July 23, 2026
| Entered: July 23, 2026
CHCA Bayshore, L.P. et al v. Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company
Contract: Insurance | Texas Northern
Order Setting Deadline/Hearing
ELECTRONIC ORDER:
Defendant Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana (BCBSLA) has filed a Motion to File Submission Under Seal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d). See Dkt. No. 15.
BCBSLA asks for an order "allowing for the filing of Exhibits 1 and 2 to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint under seal," explaining that "[t]he documents attached at Exhibits 1 and 2 (the Submission) are cited by Plaintiffs in their Complaint in support of their claims and equally support Defendant's Motion to Dismiss" but that "the Submission contains information that is confidential and trade secret and is thus protected from public disclosure by state and federal law." Id. at 1-2. More specifically, BCBSLA asserts that "the exhibits are contracts between Plaintiffs and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, a non-party to this suit," and "contain confidential reimbursement methodologies, negotiated rate structures, and proprietary contracting terms that qualify as protectable trade secrets and competitively sensitive commercial information." Id. at 2.
BCBSLA contends that, "[t]o place complete documents before the Court, rather than redacted documents, Defendant seeks leave to file the Submission under seal." Id.
But BCBSLA's motion is not accompanied by a declaration that would support these factual assertions. And it does not explain why sealing the complete versions of Exhibits 1 and 2 but also filing publicly-available redacted versions would not be an appropriate "less drastic alternative[]." Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 419-20 & n.42 (5th Cir. 2021).
As BCBSLA notes, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has explained that, "even under the stricter balancing standard, litigants sometimes have good reasons to file documents (or portions of them) under seal, such as protecting trade secrets." Id. at 419.
But the Court of Appeals also directed that, to decide whether something should be sealed, "judges... must undertake a case-by-case, document-by-document, line-by-line balancing of the public's common law right of access against the interests favoring nondisclosure" and that "[s]ealings must be explained at a level of detail that will allow for this Court's review." Id. (cleaned up).
And the panel expressed concern where "documents marked confidential provided the basis for summary judgment -- a dispositive order adjudicating the litigants' substantive rights (essentially a substitute for trial)" -- without a "mention of the presumption in favor of the public's access to judicial records," "grappling with public and private interests," "consideration of less drastic alternatives," or "assurance that the extent of sealing was congruent to the need." Id. at 420 (cleaned up).
And a Fifth Circuit panel more recently again explained that the Court of Appeals "heavily disfavor[s] sealing information placed in the judicial record"; the Fifth Circuit "require[s] information that would normally be private to become public by entering the judicial record"; "publicly available documents already belong to the people, and a judge cannot seal public documents merely because a party seeks to add them to the judicial record";"[t]hat a document qualifies for a protective order under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 26(c) for discovery says nothing about whether it should be sealed once it is placed in the judicial record"; "to the extent that any sealing is necessary, it must be congruent to the need"; and "[i]t is the solemn duty of the judge to scrupulously examine each document sought to be sealed," which "is not easy, but [] is fundamental." June Med. Servs., L.L.C. v. Phillips, 22 F.4th 512, 519-21 (5th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up).
As another judge has explained, "[w]hile 'judges, not litigants' are tasked with determining whether to seal a document and that task ultimately requires them to undertake the case-by-case, document-by-document, and line-by-line balancing of the public's right of access against presented interests favoring nondisclosure, it is certainly within a court's discretion to summarily deny a request to seal when it is apparent that the submitter has not conducted its own document-by-document, line-by-line review." Trans Tool, LLC v. All State Gear Inc., No. SA-19-cv-1304-JKP, 2022 WL 608945, at *6 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2022) (cleaned up). And "[l]itigants and others seeking secrecy have the burden to overcome the strong presumption favoring public access" and "must explain in particularity the necessity for sealing." Id. (cleaned up).
BCBSLA relies on Rule 5.2(d), which does provide that, "when appropriate, courts may order that case documents be filed under seal." Sealed Appellant v. Sealed Appellee, No. 22-50707, 2024 WL 980494, at *2 (5th Cir. Mar. 7, 2024). But "[t]o determine whether a judicial record should be sealed" pursuant t... (truncated)