Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filed Mar 5, 2021. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_4840e3ae291548bf · merge_method deterministic · confidence 100%
Discovered → first regulatory filing
Range of discovered_at dates across filings
Identity (basic) · Government ID
Time between earliest and latest filing
Not recorded for this incident
Leak precedence · Materiality delta · SEC filing delay — no leak-site claim in this cluster; no SEC 8-K in this cluster.
ME SC
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Sep 23, 2020
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Jan 8, 2021
Reported by MAINE AG, SOUTH CAROLINA AG filings
Sandhills Medical Foundation, Inc. experienced an external system breach on September 23, 2020, which was discovered on January 8, 2021. The breach affected 39,602 individuals, compromising names and Social Security numbers. The company began notifying affected individuals on March 5, 2021, and offered one year of free credit monitoring and identity theft protection services.
Affected (this filing): 39,602
Sandhills Medical Foundation, Inc. notified South Carolina residents of a data breach involving a third-party data storage vendor. Hackers accessed the vendor's system between September 23, 2020, and December 3, 2020, encrypting data and demanding a ransom. The vendor paid the ransom and recovered the data. Affected information included names, dates of birth, addresses, driver's licenses, Social Security numbers, and claims information. Sandhills offered 90 days of identity theft protection via CyberScout.
About this clustering
DisclosureLens links filings into incidents through layered matchers: deterministic rules (same source document, multistate filings of one breach, tight-window same-victim pairs), a weighted-similarity scorer for cross-source candidates, and an operator review queue for everything uncertain. Each link records its own method and confidence — shown per filing in the timeline below. The system defaults to NOT merging when uncertain, because a false merge (collapsing two unrelated breaches) is more harmful than a false split (showing related filings separately); uncertain pairs route to human review instead of auto-merging. Filing summaries shown in the timeline are AI-generated extracts — verify each against its linked source.