Case Activity (1505)

1. Filed: October 01, 2026 | Entered: October 01, 2026 Guardian Flight LLC et al v. AETNA Life Insurance Company Inc et al

   890 Other Statutory Actions | Connecticut

   Notice

   NOTICE by Air Evac EMS, Inc., AirMed International, LLC, Calstar Air Medical Services, LLC, Guardian Flight LLC, Med-Trans Corporation, Reach Air Medical Services LLC Plaintiffs' Notice of Compliance with ECF No. 411 (Attachments: # 1 Redacted Version of ECF Nos. 373-9 and 403-3, # 2 Redacted Version of ECF Nos. 373-5, 377-3, and 403-4, # 3 Redacted Version of ECF Nos. 356-7, 373-18, and 403-7, # 4 Redacted Version of ECF 357-3)(Gonsoulin, Dewey) (Entered: 10/01/2026)

2. Order | Filed: October 01, 2026 | Entered: October 01, 2026 Guardian Flight LLC et al v. AETNA Life Insurance Company Inc et al

   890 Other Statutory Actions | Connecticut

   Order

   ORDER denying Cigna's 352 375 386 Motions to Seal; denying Aetna's 356 372 384 Motions to Seal; denying Plaintiffs' 359 370 371 382 383 Motions to Seal; granting in part Plaintiffs' 393 Motion to Unseal and De-designate; finding as moot Plaintiffs' redundant 394 Motion to Unseal; granting in part Aetna's 404 Motion to Unseal and De-designate. The parties' motions have required the Court to review no fewer than 118 documents (some of which are duplicates). Only a handful of these documents warrant partial sealing based on the justifications provided by the interested party.
   
   When adjudicating a request to seal or unseal a document, the Court must analyze whether the presumption of public access to these judicial documents is outweighed by some countervailing reason, and whether the redactions are narrowly tailored to those reasons. See United States v. Amodeo ("Amodeo I"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995); United States v. Amodeo ("Amodeo II"), 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995).
   
   Because the documents in question (briefs, statements of fact, and exhibits) were submitted in connection with the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, the presumption of public access is as strong as it gets. "[W]here documents directly affect an adjudication...or are used to determine litigants' substantive legal rights, the presumption of access is at its zenith...and thus can be overcome only by extraordinary circumstances." Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 142 (2d Cir. 2016) (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Olson v. Major League Baseball, 29 F.4th 59, 8990 (2d Cir. 2022) ("The presumption of public access exists along a continuum. The strongest presumption attaches where the documents determine litigants' substantive rights[.]") (cleaned up).
   
   The documents contain information generally falling into eight categories: (1) internal procedures for navigating IDR claims; (2) costs of IDR claims processing (including negotiated fees for service providers) and strategies to reduce those costs, such as staffing adjustments, development of technology, and workflow procedures; (3) a handful of specific policies for rejecting or paying IDR awards; (4) summary data and analysis regarding types of claims and outcomes; (5) a handful of specific claims documents, including payment amounts; (6) summary damages computations; (7) guidance documents from federal government sources, and (8) sales guidance, including discussion of a Cigna sales "playbook" and an Aetna sales FAQ for responding to plan sponsors or customers.
   
   Each party contends that it would suffer competitive harm if its information were made public, which is a recognized basis for sealing. "The demonstration of a valid need to protect the confidentiality of proprietary business information, such as internal... (truncated)

3. 1503 additional result(s)