JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES ON BEHALF OF ITS PATIENTS PHYSICIANS AND STAFF v. GEE (2019)

Defendants-Appellants seek relief from the district court's November 25, 2019 Ruling and Order denying Defendants' Motion for Limited Relief from the protective order designating the documents at issue, among others, as confidential and not subject to public disclosure. Plaintiffs-Appellees filed a motion to dismiss, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which is DENIED.

In connection with their filing in the United States Supreme Court in the related matter in which certiorari was recently granted, June Medical Services v. Gee, Nos. 18-1460, 18-1323, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 35, 204 L.Ed.2d 1193 (U.S. Oct. 4, 2019) (“June I”), Defendants seek to submit as evidence three sealed documents and their attachments. Defendants further request that we nostra sponte unseal the documents at issue either in toto or for the limited purpose of filing with the Supreme Court. This court granted appellants' motion to expedite this appeal based on the December 26 filing deadline in June I. Appellants have not identified which issues, if any, are not affected by that deadline, and we have only decided the issue of whether we should unseal the documents to facilitate their filing in the briefing of June I. On the showing made, we decline to undo the protective order solely in order to facilitate supplementing the record before the Supreme Court in June I.

Although we acknowledge the overbroad nature of the district court's protective order, see Protective Order, June Medical Services v. Gee, No. 3:16-cv-00444-BAJ-RLB, (M.D. La. Feb. 22, 2018), our focus here is on the reason for the request to the district court, the denial of which is now before us: supplementing the record before the Supreme Court. The question of what documents, if any, the Supreme Court should consider in deciding June I is not for us to resolve. That decision is within the purview and prerogative of the Court.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM, without prejudice, on that ground, noting that Defendants-Appellants maintain the right to request permission to supplement the June I record from the Supreme Court.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.