Cluck v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

BARBARA CLUCK,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:18-cv-56

Judge Sarah D. Morrison

v. Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court for consideration of Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to

File Claim File Under Seal. (ECF No. 27.) This is an action for breach of a disability insurance

contract and bad faith arising under Ohio law. Defendant explains that it seeks leave to file

under seal a claim file that largely contains Plaintiff’s confidential personal and medical

information. (Id.) Defendant contends that ensuring this medical information remains private is

a compelling reason justifying non-disclosure of the claim file and, given the number and nature

of the documents in the claim file, the requested seal is no broader than necessary. (See id.)

It is well established that “[e]very court has supervisory power over its own records and

files.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). A court’s discretion to seal

records from public inspection, however, is limited by “the presumptive right of the public to

inspect and copy judicial documents and files[,]” which the United States Court of Appeals for

the Sixth Circuit as described as a “long-established legal tradition.” In re Knoxville News-

Sentinel Co., Inc., 723 F.2d 470, 473–74 (6th Cir. 1983); see also Brown & Williamson Tobacco

Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1178–80 (6th Cir. 1983) (discussing the justifications for the

“strong presumption in favor of openness”). Therefore, “[o]nly the most compelling reasons can

justify non-disclosure of judicial records.” Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich.,

825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Sixth

Circuit has indicated that exceptions fall into two categories: (1) exceptions “based on the need

to keep order and dignity in the courtroom”; and (2) “content-based exemptions,” which “include

certain privacy rights of participants or third parties, trade secrets, and national security.” Brown

& Williamson Tobacco Corp., 710 F.2d at 1179 (citations omitted).

In addition, the Sixth Circuit has recently emphasized the public’s “strong interest in

obtaining the information contained in the Court record.” Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 305

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig.,

927 F.3d 919, 939 (6th Cir. 2019) (“‘[T]he greater the public interest in the litigation’s subject

matter, the greater the showing necessary to overcome the presumption of access.’”) (quoting

Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 305). Accordingly, district courts must consider “each pleading

[to be] filed under seal or with redactions and to make a specific determination as to the

necessity of nondisclosure in each instance” and must “bear in mind that the party seeking to file

under seal must provide a ‘compelling reason’ to do so and demonstrate that the seal is ‘narrowly

tailored to serve that reason.’” In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig., 927 F.3d at 940 (quoting

Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305). If a district court “permits a pleading to be filed under seal or with

redactions, it shall be incumbent upon the court to adequately explain ‘why the interests in

support of nondisclosure are compelling, why the interests supporting access are less so, and why

the seal itself is no broader than necessary.’” Id. (quoting Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 306).

Applying the foregoing considerations to this case, the Court finds that the public has

some interest in this action, which arises from Defendant’s denial of disability benefits.

However, the information sought to be sealed are Plaintiff’s medical records and private health

information. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), a

federal law that seeks to ensure the security and privacy of health information, Wade v. Vabnick-

Wener, 922 F. Supp. 2d 679, 687 (W.D. Tenn. 2010), represents a “strong federal policy in favor

of protecting the privacy of patient medical records.” Law v. Zuckerman, 307 F. Supp. 2d 705,

711 (D. Md. 2004). In addition, Ohio courts have found the state statute governing Ohio’s

physician-patient privilege, Ohio Revised Code § 2317.02(B), is even “more stringent than

HIPAA, and therefore is not preempted, because it ‘prohibits use or disclosure of health

information when such use or disclosure would be allowed under HIPAA.’” Turk v. Oiler, 732

F. Supp. 2d 758, 771 (N.D. Ohio 2010) (citations omitted) (collecting cases).

After weighing these competing interests, the Court finds that the strong policy and

interest in protecting the non-disclosure of private health information outweighs the public’s

modest interest in disclosure of these materials in this case. See Law, 307 F. Supp. 2d at 711;

Turk, 732 F. Supp. 2d at 771; Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 305. Sealing Plaintiff’s medical

records and private health information is in accordance with the strong policy of HIPAA and

Ohio Revised Code Section 2317.02(B) of protecting patient information. Id. Finally, under the

circumstances of this particular case only, permitting Defendant to file the entire claim file under

seal “is no broader than necessary” to protect that information. In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate

Litig., 927 F. 3d at 940 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

For all these reasons, Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to File Claim File Under Seal

(ECF No. 27) is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to accept for filing under seal the claim

file in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: November 25, 2019 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers

ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE