# Pullins v. Conagra Brands, Inc

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · March 16, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10375020

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** March 16, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10375020

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that “[a] court’s obligation to keep its records open for public inspection is not conditioned on an objection from anybody”

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
CHELSEA PULLINS,
Plaintiff, Case No. 3:19-cv-21
vs.
CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER GRANTING DEFEENDANT CONAGRA BRANDS, INC.’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL (DOC. 14)
______________________________________________________________________________
This civil case is before the Court on the motion of Defendant Conagra Brands, Inc. to seal
certain exhibits it seeks to file in support of its motion for summary judgment. Doc. 14. The
exhibits Defendant seeks to file under seal are Plaintiff’s medical records. Id.
A party maintaining that records should be sealed from public view bears a heavy burden
of setting forth specific reasons why the interests in “nondisclosure are compelling, why the
interests supporting access are less so, and why the seal itself is no broader than necessary.” Shane
Grp. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 306 (6th Cir. 2016); see also Rudd Equip.
Co., Inc. v. John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co., 834 F.3d 589, 593–94 (6th Cir. 2016). Such
burden applies even where no “party objects to the motion to seal.” See id. (stating that “[a] court’s
obligation to keep its records open for public inspection is not conditioned on an objection from
anybody”). Ultimately, courts possess discretion to seal records, Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1177 (6th Cir. 1983), albeit “not . . . the traditional scope of ‘narrow
review reserved for discretionary decisions based on first-hand observations.’” In re Knoxville
News-Sentinel Co., Inc., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983). In exercising such discretion, courts
must set forth an explanation for permitting the filing of information under seal. Shane Grp., 825
F.3d at 306.
Here, the public has some interest in this case which concerns allegations of disability
discrimination and violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). The public’s interest
in this case, however, is outweighed by Plaintiff’s private interest in the security and privacy of

her sensitive medical information. See Cluck v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 2:18-CV-56, 2019
WL 6310058, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 25, 2019) (“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”).
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for leave to file medical records under seal (doc. 14) is
GRANTED. The Clerk is ORDERED to permit and allow for the filing of such exhibits under
seal on the Court’s docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: March 13, 2020 s/ Michael J. Newman
Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10375020. Public record. Not legal advice.