holding that a “confidentiality agreement between the parties does not bind the court in any way”
How later courts described this case
- holding that a “confidentiality agreement between the parties does not bind the court in any way”
- “[T]his circuit has held that placing one’s mental health at issue constitutes waiver of the privilege.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action 2:17-cv-823
Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
CITY OF COLUMBUS, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to File
Document Under Seal (“Motion,” ECF No. 77). In his Motion, Plaintiff proposes to file under
seal, in connection with his Response in Opposition re Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
83), several medical records that are subject to the parties’ protective order. (Motion 1, ECF No.
77.) For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
There is a strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial records. Stanley v.
Turner Oil & Gas Properties, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-386, 2017 WL 5068444, at *1 (S.D. Ohio July
24, 2017). As the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has explained, documents
filed with the Court may be placed under seal “[o]nly for the most compelling reasons.” Shane
Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting In
re Knoxville News–Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983)). “A movant’s obligation to
provide compelling reasons justifying the seal exists even if the parties themselves agree the
filings should be sealed.” White v. Wilberforce Univ., No. 1:16-CV-1165, 2017 WL 3537233, at
*2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 17, 2017) (emphasis in original) (citing Rudd Equip. Co., Inc. v. John Deere
Constr. & Forestry Co., 834 F.3d 589, 595 (6th Cir. 2016)). The proponent of sealing therefore
must “analyze in detail, document by document, the propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and
legal citations.” Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 305 (quoting Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297
F.3d 544, 548 (7th Cir. 2002)). These reasons and legal citations must be sufficient for a district
court to “set forth specific findings and conclusions which justify nondisclosure to the public.”
Rudd Equip. Co., Inc., 834 F.3d at 594.
Here, Plaintiff’s Motion fails to meet the high standard set forth by the Sixth Circuit.
Plaintiff fails to set forth compelling reasons justifying the sealing of documents, asserting only
that the documents in question are “confidential medical records” subject to the parties’
Protective Order. (Motion 1, ECF No. 77.) The parties’ agreement to maintain confidentiality,
standing alone, does not constitute a compelling reason for filing under seal. See Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1180 (6th Cir. 1983) (holding that a
“confidentiality agreement between the parties does not bind the court in any way”); White, 2017
WL 3537233, at *2 (finding the parties’ joint motion to file under seal woefully inadequate
where they merely asserted that they decided to keep the terms of their settlement confidential).
Further, Plaintiff failed to “analyze in detail, document by document, the propriety of secrecy,
providing reasons and legal citations.” Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 305 (quoting Baxter Int’l,
Inc., 297 F.3d, at 548). Additionally, Plaintiff has waived any physician-patient privilege by
placing his medical condition at-issue in this case. See O.R.C. § 2317.02(B)(1)(a)(iii); see also
Simon v. Cook, 261 F. App'x 873, 886 (6th Cir. 2008) (“[T]his circuit has held that placing one’s
mental health at issue constitutes waiver of the privilege.”); White v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc.,
No. 2:07-CV-216, 2008 WL 5431160, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 31, 2008) (noting that the
physician-patient “privilege is waived upon the patient’s filing of any . . . civil action”) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted); Mitchell v. Tennessee, No. 3:17-CV-00973, 2020 WL
6712169, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 16, 2020) (“Courts in this circuit recognize that plaintiffs who
place their medical condition at issue waive any applicable privileges or statutory protections
that their medical records would have otherwise had.”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing
cases).
For the above-stated reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 77) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. If either party desires that Plaintiff file under seal the exhibits referred to in
Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition re Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 83), the
proponent of the seal must file a properly supported motion that demonstrates good cause for
filing under seal WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS of the date of this Order. The parties are
cautioned that any forthcoming motions regarding filing documents under seal should be
narrowly tailored, as the sealing of documents must be no broader than necessary. See Shane
Group, Inc., 825 F.3d at 305.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura
CHELSEY M. VASCURA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE