holding that fear of retaliation by current or future employers is not sufficient basis to seal record
How later courts described this case
- holding that fear of retaliation by current or future employers is not sufficient basis to seal record
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
TOMEK OSSOSKI, Case No. 1:15-cv-388
Plaintiff,
Bertelsman, J.
v. Bowman, M.J.
CARESPRING HEALTHCARE
HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Through counsel, the above-captioned employment discrimination case was filed
by Plaintiff more than five years ago. Ultimately, the matter was fully resolved through a
court-facilitated settlement conference held on September 15, 2017. Three years after
the dismissal of this action, Plaintiff has filed a pro se motion seeking to have the entirety
of the record “sealed and not be made public.” (Doc. 25). Plaintiff’s motion has been
referred to the undersigned magistrate judge by the presiding district judge.1
I. Analysis
Plaintiff seeks to seal the record in order to prevent its discovery by any member
of the public who types his name into a search engine. Plaintiff explains that “when
someone types in my name in Google search the [case] shows up on [the] first line,” which
1A magistrate judge may dispose of any non-dispositive “pretrial” motion by order. See 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1)(A). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B), a district judge also may refer dispositive motions and
certain enumerated post-trial motions to a magistrate judge for a Report and Recommendation. The list of
post-trial matters in §636(b)(1)(B) does not include a motion to seal the record, but a district judge may
refer other matters “as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(3). A pretrial motion to seal would be non-dispositive. However, out of an abundance of caution
based on the closed status of this case, the undersigned addresses the pending motion by Report and
Recommendation rather than by Order.
the stated grounds do not provide a basis for sealing this record.
Unlike information merely exchanged between the parties, “[t]he public has a
strong interest in obtaining the information contained in the court record.” Shane Group,
Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1180 (6th Cir. 1983)); see
also generally, Nixon v. Warner Comms., 435 U.S. 589, 597, 98 S.Ct. 1306 (1978). While
public access to judicial records is not absolute, the strong presumption in favor of public
access is not easily overcome. Jessup v. Luther, 277 F.3d 926, 928 (7th Cir.2002). Thus,
“sealing of court records is not warranted absent the presence of a factor sufficient to
outweigh the strong interest in public access, such as national security considerations,
trade secrets, personal privacy interests, and personal safety concerns.” United States
ex rel. Jack Permison v. Superlative Techs., 492 F.Supp.2d 561, 564 (E.D. Va.2007). A
party’s fear of embarrassment or harm to reputation does not provide grounds for sealing
a public record. See Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir.2007); Zurich American
Ins. Co. v. Rite Aid Corp., 345 F.Supp.2d 497 (E.D.Pa.2004). That includes a fear of a
negative impact on future employment. See U.S. v. Bon Secours Cottage Health
Services, 665 F.Supp.2d 782, 786 (E.D. Mich. 2008) (holding that fear of retaliation by
current or future employers is not sufficient basis to seal record). The “natural desire” of
parties to safeguard their reputations against potentially prejudicial information “cannot
be accommodated by courts without seriously undermining the tradition of an open
judicial system.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 710 F.2d at 1179-80.
Because Plaintiff fails to satisfy his heavy burden to show the need for sealing the
entire record, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT his pro se motion to seal this closed case
(Doc. 25) be DENIED, with a copy of this R&R to be served upon Plaintiff at the address
identified on the envelope containing the motion in addition to all counsel of record
through the cm/ecf system.2
s/ Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Magistrate Judge
2The return address listed on the envelope in which Plaintiff mailed his motion to this Court is: 108 Southern
Trace, Cincinnati, OH 45255.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
TOMEK OSSOSKI, Case No. 1:15-cv-388
Plaintiff,
Bertelsman, J.
v. Bowman, M.J.
CARESPRING HEALTHCARE
HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after
being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on
timely motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the
portion(s) of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in
support of the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within
FOURTEEN DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make
objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).