Good Samaritan Hospital, L.P. et al. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 20CV371719 Millan v. Bouton Construction, Inc. See Line 1 for tentative ruling (Class Action / PAGA) LINE 2 20CV374597 Regional Medical Center of San Jose, et See Line 2 for tentative ruling al. v. County of Santa Clara dba Valley Health Plan LINE 3 20CV374597 Regional Medical Center of San Jose, et See Line 2 for tentative ruling al. v. County of Santa Clara dba Valley Health Plan LINE 4 20CV374597 Regional Medical Center of San Jose, et See Line 2 for tentative ruling al. v.

County of Santa Clara dba Valley Health Plan LINE 5 21CV383976 Goodman v. Boba Guys, Inc. (Class See Line 5 for tentative ruling Action) LINE 6 23CV423933 Running v. United Security Specialists, See Line 6 for tentative ruling Inc. (Class Action / PAGA) LINE 7 23CV427314 Good Samaritan Hospital, L.P., et al. v. See Line 7 for tentative ruling Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. on motions to seal at Lines 7 – 20 LINE 21 24CV428938 Essex Portfolio, L.P. vs F.D. Thomas, Inc. See Line 21 for tentative et al ruling LINE 22 24CV448267 Raj Parihar vs MIPS Holding, Inc.

See Line 22 for tentative ruling LINE 23 24CV448267 Raj Parihar vs MIPS Holding, Inc. See Line 23 for tentative ruling LINE 24 25CV480101 Isabella La Tour Vs SLT Lending Spv, See Line 24 for tentative Inc., a Delaware corporation et al (Class ruling Action / PAGA)

Calendar Lines 7 – 20

Case Name: Good Samaritan Hospital, L.P. et al. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. Case No.: 23CV427314

I.

Introduction

Plaintiffs Good Samaritan Hospital, L.P.; San Jose Healthcare System, L.P.; Los Robles Regional Medical Center; Riverside Healthcare System, L.P.; and West Hills Hospital (the “Hospitals”) sued defendant Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (“Kaiser”) on December 5, 2023.

Between June 29 and August 3, 2026, in connection with the Hospitals’ motion for summary adjudication as to certain of Kaiser’s affirmative defenses (the “MSA”) and the parties’ respective motions in limine (the “MILs”), the parties filed fourteen motions and applications to seal (the “Sealing Requests”).

The parties have since agreed to resolve this matter, and the trial date has been vacated.

The Sealing Requests appear to be the last law and motion matters remaining before the Court.

Having reviewed the Sealing Requests, the declarations supporting each, the stipulated protective order entered March 7, 2024 (the “Protective Order”), and the materials lodged conditionally under seal, the Court GRANTS the Sealing Requests in substantial part, CONDITIONALLY GRANTS them in part, and DEFERS ruling in two limited respects.

II. The Sealing Requests

No. Filed Short form Materials Supporting declaration 1 6/29/26 Hospitals’ MIL Materials filed with the Hospitals’ Barnhart Application MILs 1–10 2 6/29/26 Kaiser’s MIL Motion Kaiser’s MILs 1, 2, 6 and supporting Reiter exhibits 3 7/6/26 Kaiser’s MSA and Portions of the Hospitals’ MSA and Reiter MIL Motion MILs 1–10 and supporting exhibits 4 7/9/26 Hospitals’ Kaiser-MIL Materials lodged by Kaiser with Barnhart Application Kaiser’s MILs 1–6

No. Filed Short form Materials Supporting declaration 5 7/13/26 Kaiser’s MSA Portions of Kaiser’s MSA opposition Reiter Opposition Motion and separate statement 6 7/15/26 Hospitals’ MIL Materials filed with the Hospitals’ Barnhart Opposition oppositions to Kaiser’s MILs 1–6 Application 7 7/15/26 Kaiser’s MIL Portions of Kaiser’s MIL oppositions Reiter Opposition Motion and supporting exhibits 8 7/22/26 Hospitals’ MSA Reply Portions of the Hospitals’ MSA reply, Barnhart Application responses to separate statement, and evidentiary objections 9 7/23/26 Hospitals’ Kaiser- Materials filed by Kaiser with Kaiser’s Barnhart MSA-Opposition MSA opposition Application 10 7/24/26 Kaiser’s Omnibus Materials filed with the Hospitals’ Reiter Motion MSA reply and MIL oppositions, and with Kaiser’s MIL replies 11 7/24/26 Hospitals’ MIL Reply Materials filed with the Hospitals’ Barnhart Application replies ISO MILs 1–10 12 7/27/26 Hospitals’ Kaiser- Materials lodged by Kaiser with Barnhart MIL-Opposition Kaiser’s oppositions to the Hospitals’ Application MILs 1–10 13 8/3/26 Hospitals’ Kaiser- Materials lodged by Kaiser with Barnhart MIL-Reply Kaiser’s replies ISO MILs 1–6 Application 14 8/3/26 Kaiser’s MIL Reply Portions of the Hospitals’ replies ISO Reiter Motion MILs 8 and 9

The Court refers to the supporting declarations of Lindsey Barnhart collectively as the “Barnhart Sealing Declarations” and to those of Joseph A. Reiter as the “Reiter Sealing Declarations.”

A. Declarations to Which Exhibits are Attached

The materials at issue are exhibits to declarations filed with the merits briefing, not to the Sealing Requests.

Exhibit numbers repeat across those declarations, so each is cited by the short form below.

Short form Filed Exhibits Barnhart MSA Decl. 6/24/26 Exs. 1–5+ Barnhart MIL Decl. 6/29/26 Exs. 1–44 First Reiter Omnibus Decl. 6/29/26 Exs. 1–76 Reiter MSA Opp. Decl. 7/13/26 Exs. 1–35 Barnhart MIL Opp. Decl. 7/15/26 Exs. 1–21 Second Reiter Omnibus Decl. 7/15/26 Exs. 80–143 Barnhart MIL Reply Decl. 7/24/26 Exs. 1–5 Third Reiter Omnibus Decl. 7/24/26 Exs. 146–149

B. The Hospitals’ Response

On July 28, 2026 the Hospitals filed a response addressing Sealing Requests Nos. 2, 3, and 10 (the “Hospitals’ Response”).

Kaiser filed no reply.

That response is the only opposition of any kind in the record; the remaining eleven Sealing Requests are unopposed.

III. The Protective Order

The Protective Order permits any party or non-party to designate discovery material “Confidential” or, for extremely sensitive non-public business or financial information, “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” (together, “Protected Material”).

(Protective Order, ¶¶ 1–3.)

Its preamble recites that the parties intended it to function as a qualified protective order under 45 Code of Federal Regulations part 164.512(e)(1)(v), governing protected health information under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) and the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (“CMIA”).

Part Two governs use of Protected Material in court.

Paragraph 19 requires a party filing its own designated material and seeking sealing to move under California Rules of Court, rule 2.551.

Paragraph 20 addresses the converse (i.e., a party filing material designated by someone else) and permits that party either to give ten business days’ advance notice or to lodge under rule 2.551(d) while filing redacted public versions, in which case any affected party may move to seal within ten business days after the lodging.

Paragraph 20 explains the posture here.

Most Sealing Requests are brought by the party that did not file the material: Kaiser moves to seal exhibits the Hospitals submitted, and the Hospitals move to seal exhibits Kaiser lodged.

Eleven of the fourteen sealing are unopposed because the only party positioned to oppose is the one that made the filing and has no confidentiality interest of its own in the material.

Two further provisions bear on the analysis.

Paragraph 21 provides that a sealing declaration under rule 2.551(b)(1) “shall contain sufficient particularity with respect to the particular Protected Material and the basis for sealing to enable the Court to make the findings required by California Rule of Court 2.550(d) without being required to review each item of Protected Material.”

Paragraph 22 confirms the limits of the parties’ agreement: the Protective Order “creates no right to file Protected Material under seal without complying with California Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 et seq.”

IV.

Legal Standard

Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed open.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c).)

A record may be filed under seal only if the court expressly finds: (1) an overriding interest exists that overcomes the right of public access; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing; (3) a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced absent sealing; (4) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) no less restrictive means exist.

(Rule 2.550(d); NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1217–1218 (NBC Subsidiary).)

A sealing order must state the facts supporting the findings and must reach only those documents and pages (or, if reasonably practical, portions of them) containing material that must be sealed.

(Rule 2.550(e)(1)(A)–(B).)

The motion must be supported by a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify sealing (rule 2.551(b)(1)), and the court may not seal a record based solely on the parties’ agreement (rule 2.551(a)).

The right of access exists so the public may monitor the exercise of judicial power.

It is strongest as to records furnishing the basis for adjudication of substantive rights, and weaker as to records that do not.

(NBC Subsidiary, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 1208–1212; Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 486–488.)

Here, the MSA and MILs were never decided.

The parties settled, and no right will be adjudicated on the basis of these materials.

The public interest in access, while real, is materially weaker than it would be had the Court ruled on their basis.

That informs the balance struck below but relieves the movants of no element of rule 2.550(d), and the Court has not treated it as doing so.

Preservation of trade secrets and confidential commercial information is a recognized overriding interest.

(NBC Subsidiary, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 1222, fn. 46; In re Providian Credit Card Cases (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 292, 298–301 (In re Providian); Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283–1286 (Universal City Studios).)

So is the privacy of non-party patients in their medical information.

(Cal. Const., Art. I, § 1.)

A record already accessible to the public, however, cannot be sealed.

(Rule 2.550(d)(1); Hurvitz v. Hoefflin (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1232, 1245 (Hurvitz).)

V. Categories of Material

“Contract Material”: executed agreements between Kaiser or Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. and the Hospitals or other third-party hospitals; rate exhibits and fee schedules to those agreements; claims-level billing, payment, and patient-liability data; settlement agreements between the parties; and quotations from or summaries of the foregoing.

“Strategy Material”: internal analyses, correspondence, presentations, and testimony reflecting either party’s approach to negotiating contracts and reimbursement with the other or with third parties.

“Patient Material”: medical records of Kaiser members and other non-party patients, provider payment dispute resolution requests identifying individual patients, and the discrete portions of expert reports and deposition testimony discussing individual patient encounters.

“Methodology Material”: documents and testimony describing Kaiser’s proprietary methodology for determining “reasonable and customary” reimbursement rates payable to noncontracted facilities.

“Excerpted Testimony”: the excerpted deposition transcripts and excerpted expert reports lodged as exhibits, which contain Contract, Strategy, Patient, or Methodology Material.

“Brief Portions”: the identified lines, footnotes, and highlighted passages of the parties’ briefs, separate statements, responses to separate statements, and evidentiary objections that quote from, summarize, or otherwise disclose the foregoing.

VI. Findings

A. The Supporting Declarations Satisfy Rule 2.551(b)(1)

The Barnhart and Reiter Sealing Declarations describe the material by category rather than document by document.

The Court concludes that showing suffices, for three reasons.

First, the parties stipulated to this approach and the Court approved it.

Paragraph 21 of the Protective Order expressly contemplates a declaration particular enough as to categories of Protected Material to permit the rule 2.550(d) findings “without being required to review each item.”

A stipulation cannot relieve the Court of its independent obligation under rule 2.551(a), and the Court does not treat paragraph 21 as doing so because paragraph 22 forecloses that reading.

But paragraph 21 reflects a considered, court-approved judgment about the particularity appropriate to litigation of this scale, and the declarations conform to it.

Second, the categories are discriminating rather than undifferentiated.

The movants assert no blanket claim over everything designated under the Protective Order.

They identify four distinct classes of information and match each exhibit and designated passage to the class or classes into which it falls.

The character of each class supplies the substance a document-bydocument declaration would otherwise provide.

Third, the Court has examined the materials lodged conditionally under seal and finds the categorical descriptions accurate.

B. Overriding Interests Exist

Overriding interests exist as to each category, as set forth below.

1. Contract Material

The agreements, rate exhibits, and claims-level payment data reflect specifically negotiated pricing whose commercial value depends on its confidentiality.

Disclosure would inform every counterparty in future negotiations with either party and impair the ability of both to compete.

Several agreements contain express nondisclosure provisions, supporting the conclusion that the parties have taken reasonable steps to preserve secrecy.

(See Universal City Studios, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1285–1286.)

The Court finds an overriding interest, that it supports sealing, and that a substantial probability exists it would be prejudiced by public disclosure.

2. Strategy Material

Internal deliberations about how to approach negotiation and reimbursement disputes are confidential business information of the same character and warrant the same treatment, for the same reasons.

3. Methodology Material

Kaiser’s reasonable-and-customary methodology derives independent economic value from not being generally known to persons who could obtain value from its disclosure, and is the subject of efforts reasonable under the circumstances to maintain secrecy.

(Civ. Code, § 3426.1, subd. (d).)

The Reiter Sealing Declarations further state that Kaiser files the methodology with the Department of Managed Health Care and has been advised the agency will treat it as confidential.

The Court finds an overriding interest.

4. Patient Material

Non-party patients have a constitutionally protected privacy interest in their medical information, reinforced by HIPAA and the CMIA.

The parties structured the Protective Order as a qualified protective order for that reason.

The patients are not before the Court and cannot protect their own interests.

The overriding interest is manifest and the probability of prejudice from disclosure self-evident.

C. The Sealing is Narrowly Tailored and No Less Restrictive Means Exist

Rule 2.550(e)(1)(B) requires that sealing extend only to those documents, pages, or if reasonably practical, portions of pages containing material requiring protection.

The Brief Portions are tailored on their face.

The movants identify specific pages, lines, footnotes, and highlighted passages, leaving the remainder of each document in the public file.

Kaiser’s MSA Opposition Motion, for instance, designates individual lines (“Page 2, Lines 19, 24–26; Page 3, Line 3 ...”) rather than the document; the Hospitals’ Kaiser-MIL Application designates ranges as narrow as a single line.

The Court finds these requests narrowly tailored and finds no less restrictive means available.

As to the Excerpted Testimony, the parties lodged not complete transcripts or reports but the excerpted pages on which they relied, and in several instances designated particular page-and-line ranges within those excerpts, as with First Reiter Omnibus Decl. Ex. 3, for which the Hospitals seek sealing only of 115:8–116:5 and 119:17–23.

The narrowing rule 2.550(e)(1)(B) contemplates has already occurred at the point of submission.

Further redaction would not meaningfully reduce the volume of sealed material and is not reasonably practical.

As to the Contract Material, the Court has considered whether the agreements might be sealed in part, leaving boilerplate and signature pages public.

Because the rate exhibits and payment schedules constitute the substance of these documents, because the confidentiality provisions are themselves among the terms at issue, and because the agreements have not been offered as the basis for any adjudication, the Court finds partial sealing not reasonably practical and no less restrictive means available.

A residual group of exhibits is sought to be sealed in full without excerpting and without a description sufficient to permit the required findings.

Those are addressed in section VII.B.

VII. Rulings

A. Granted

The Sealing Requests are GRANTED as to the following, which shall be filed under seal.

Category Materials Requests Patient Material First Reiter Omnibus Decl. Exs. 70–74; Second Reiter 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 12 Omnibus Decl. Exs. 139, 140; Barnhart MIL Decl. Ex. 20, Ex. 40 (¶¶ 18, 20 & Ex. 2), Ex. 41 (pp. 112–113) Contract Barnhart MSA Decl. Ex. 4 (p. 9), Ex. 5 (designated 2, 3, 5, 7, 10 Material columns); Barnhart MIL Decl. Exs. 2, 20–27, 29, 42–44; First Reiter Omnibus Decl. Exs. 67, 71–76; Reiter MSA Opp. Decl. Exs. 8, 11–16, 19, 25, 27–33, 35; Second Reiter Omnibus Decl. Exs. 83, 95, 100–102, 104, 105; Barnhart MIL Opp.

Decl. Exs. 4, 5, 12, 15, 17 Strategy First Reiter Omnibus Decl. Exs. 18, 19, 29, 75; Barnhart 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, Material MIL Decl. Exs. 8, 11, 35, 36; Barnhart MIL Opp. Decl. 12 Exs. 12, 13, 14, 16; Second Reiter Omnibus Decl. Exs. 84, 90, 94, 103, 106, 111–113, 117, 132, 143 Methodology Second Reiter Omnibus Decl. Exs. 119, 121, 123, 126, 3, 5, 7, 10 Material 129, 130, 133, 135–137, 141; Reiter MSA Opp. Decl. Exs. 1, 19, 33; Barnhart MSA Decl. Ex. 3 (pp. 8–9), Ex. 4 (pp. 5–8); Barnhart MIL Decl.

Ex. 5 (pp. 8–9), Ex. 31 Excerpted First Reiter Omnibus Decl. Ex. 3 (115:8–116:5; 119:17– 1, 4, 6, 11, 12, Testimony 23), Exs. 5, 53–55, 58, 62, 64–66, 68; Barnhart MIL Decl. 13 Exs. 1, 6, 7, 33, 38, 39, 41, 43; Barnhart MIL Opp. Decl. Exs. 4, 13, 18, 21; Barnhart MIL Reply Decl. Exs. 1, 3, 4, 5; Second Reiter Omnibus Decl. Exs. 80, 82, 92, 93, 96, 99, 107, 110, 115, 118; Third Reiter Omnibus Decl. Exs. 146–149 Brief Portions All page-, line-, and highlight-designated portions of the 1, 3–8, 10–14 MILs, MIL oppositions, MIL replies, MSA, MSA opposition, MSA reply, separate statements, responses to separate statements, and evidentiary objections identified in Sealing Requests Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14; Barnhart MIL Decl. ¶ 44

As to each item, the Court finds: an overriding interest exists as described in section VI.B; the overriding interest supports sealing; a substantial probability exists that it would be prejudiced were the record not sealed; the sealing is narrowly tailored; and no less restrictive means exist.

B. Conditionally granted

The following are CONDITIONALLY GRANTED.

The materials shall remain under seal, and sealing shall become final without further order upon the filing described.

Absent a timely filing, the Court will set the matter for further hearing before ruling.

1. Exhibits Described Only as “Undated Internal Hospitals Document”

Second Reiter Omnibus Decl. Exs. 81, 108, 114, and 116 are identified in Sealing Request No. 12 solely by that phrase, and the Court cannot state facts supporting the required findings on that description alone.

Within 15 days the Hospitals shall file a supplemental declaration identifying the nature, approximate date, and subject matter of each exhibit and the category into which it falls.

2. Complete Expert Reports

Barnhart MIL Decl. Exs. 1, 31, 42, and 44, and First Reiter Omnibus Decl. Exs. 26, 31, and 63, appear to be complete or substantially complete expert reports rather than excerpts.

Within 15 days the proponent of sealing shall either (a) lodge proposed redacted public versions, or (b) file a declaration stating that redaction is not reasonably practical because the confidential material is distributed throughout the report, in which event the exhibits shall be sealed in their entirety.

3. Exhibits Lodged Without any Sealing Request

Barnhart MIL Opp. Decl. Exs. 9, 10, and 11 were lodged conditionally under seal on July 15, 2026 with notice that the Hospitals would not move to seal them and that Kaiser had ten days to do so.

Kaiser’s Omnibus Motion is timely but reaches Exs. 1–7 and 12–17 of that declaration, omitting Exs. 9, 10, and 11.

Under rule 2.551(b)(3)(B) those exhibits would ordinarily be transferred to the public file.

Because Kaiser moved to seal the exhibits on either side of them in the same series, the omission appears inadvertent.

Kaiser may file a request as to these three exhibits within 15 days; absent such a filing they shall be transferred to the public file.

4. The Lodging Notices

Kaiser’s notices of lodging filed June 29 and July 24, 2026 each list certain items both as documents Kaiser “has moved to seal” and as documents Kaiser “does not intend to seal”: in the June 29 notice, Kaiser’s MILs 1, 2, and 6 and a substantial number of First Reiter Omnibus Decl. exhibits; in the July 24 notice, Kaiser’s replies ISO MILs 1, 2, and 5 and Third Reiter Omnibus Decl. Exs. 147 and 148.

The Court treats Sealing Requests Nos. 2 and 10 as the operative statements of the relief Kaiser seeks and resolves the discrepancy accordingly.

Kaiser shall file a corrected notice within 15 days confirming this understanding.

C. Deferred: Material Asserted to be in the Public Domain

The Hospitals’ Response represents that fourteen exhibits Kaiser moves to seal were admitted as trial exhibits in Los Robles Regional Medical Center et al. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., et al. (Alameda Super. Ct.) No. RG17880285 (“Kaiser I”):

Exhibit Kaiser I trial exhibit First Reiter Omnibus Decl. Exs. 33, 41, 47 PTX-001, PTX-034, PTX-835 Barnhart MIL Decl. Exs. 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, PTX-003, PTX-001, PTX-017, PTX-010, PTX- 18 009, PTX-016 Barnhart MIL Opp. Decl. Exs. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 PTX-016, PTX-009, PTX-017, PTX-003, PTX- 010

A record cannot be sealed if public access already exists.

(Rule 2.550(d)(1); Hurvitz, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 1245.)

The Protective Order reflects the same principle: “a document may lose its protected status if it is made public.”

(Protective Order, ¶ 12.)

Kaiser’s own papers acknowledge, quoting In re Providian, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at page 304, that public disclosure “is fatal to the existence of a trade secret.”

While Kaiser has not responded, the Court is nonetheless reluctant to order these exhibits into the public file on the present showing.

The Hospitals’ representation is made by an officer of the court but is unsupported by declaration, by the Kaiser I exhibit list, or by other documentation.

And admission of an exhibit at trial does not invariably place it in the public domain, since an exhibit may be admitted subject to a sealing order.

Second Reiter Omnibus Decl. Ex. 91 (which the Hospitals themselves ask the Court to seal) is the Kaiser I court’s July 21, 2022 orders on in limine motions, bearing the legend “(Unredacted – To Be Filed Under Seal),” indicating at least some portion of the Kaiser I record was sealed.

Accordingly, the Court DEFERS its ruling.

Within 15 days Kaiser may file a declaration establishing that these exhibits were admitted under seal in Kaiser I or otherwise remain non-public, and the Hospitals may lodge documentary support for their representation.

If Kaiser makes the showing, Sealing Requests Nos. 2, 3, and 10 will be granted as to these exhibits; if not, they will be denied as to these exhibits and the exhibits placed in the public file.

As to Barnhart MSA Decl. Ex. 5, the stipulation and arbitration agreement re arbitration of denied medical claims and Exhibit A thereto, Sealing Request No. 3 is DENIED AS MOOT: as the Hospitals’ Response reflects, the parties jointly filed that document on July 6, 2026 with the columns at issue unsealed, and the Court so ordered on July 9, 2026.

D. Deferred: the Kaiser I in Limine Orders

By Sealing Request No. 12 the Hospitals seek to seal Second Reiter Omnibus Decl. Ex. 91, the Kaiser I in limine orders described above, which Kaiser lodged but did not move to seal.

The exhibit is a record of a coordinate court whose sealing status that court has already determined, and the question is intertwined with the submissions ordered in section VII.C.

Ruling is DEFERRED on the same schedule; the exhibit shall remain under seal in the interim.

VIII. Conclusion

1. Sealing Requests Nos. 1 through 14 are GRANTED as to the materials identified in section VII.A.

The Clerk is directed to file those materials under seal.

2. Sealing Requests Nos. 2, 6, 10, and 12 are CONDITIONALLY GRANTED as to the materials identified in section VII.B, which shall remain under seal pending the filings described there.

3. Ruling on Sealing Requests Nos. 2, 3, 10, and 12 is DEFERRED as to the materials identified in sections VII.C and VII.D, which shall remain under seal in the interim.

4. Sealing Request No. 3 is DENIED AS MOOT as to Barnhart MSA Decl. Ex. 5.

5. All filings directed by sections VII.B, VII.C, and VII.D shall be made no later than 15 days from the date of this order.

Any response shall be filed within 7 days thereafter.

6. Notwithstanding rule 2.551(b)(6), no record lodged conditionally under seal in connection with any Sealing Request shall be returned to the submitting party, deleted, or transferred to the public file except upon further order of this Court.

7. This order does not alter the parties’ obligations under the Protective Order, which by its terms continues in effect after conclusion of the action.

(Protective Order, ¶ 15.)

8. The Court makes no findings under rule 2.550 as to any record not identified above.

9. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce and to modify this order following entry of judgment.

The Court will prepare the order.

- oo0oo -

13