discussing the justifications for the “strong presumption in favor of openness”
How later courts described this case
- discussing the justifications for the “strong presumption in favor of openness”
- “‘[T]he greater the public interest in the litigation’s subject matter, the greater the showing necessary to overcome the presumption of access.’”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
DONALD HARRISON,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:18-cv-1023
vs. Judge Sarah D. Morrison
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers
ZACH SCOTT, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Defendants Deborah McGlone and
Effie Laub’s Motion to File Under Seal, ECF No. 57, and Motion on Behalf of Defendants Zach
Scott, Mendel Reid, Mohamed Hashi Abib and Won Song to Withdraw Previous Filing and
Motion to File Deposition and Exhibit Under Seal, ECF No. 60. Defendants McGlone and Laub
seek leave to file under seal six (6) exhibits to their Motion for Summary Judgment, which
contain Plaintiff’s confidential medical records. (ECF No. 57.) Defendants Scott, Reid, Abib,
and Song seek to withdraw the previously-filed deposition and exhibit of Defendant Abib, ECF
No. 51, and they seek leave to file such documents under seal in support of their Motion for
Summary Judgment, as they also contain Plaintiff’s confidential medical records. (ECF No. 60.)
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).
Here, although they have not argued it, the moving Defendants seek to file various
summary judgment exhibits under seal to protect Plaintiff’s confidential and sensitive personal
medical information. (See ECF Nos. 57, 60.) Sealing such records is in accordance with the
strong public policy of HIPAA and Ohio Revised Code Section 2317.02(B) of protecting patient
information. This Court finds Defendants have set forth compelling reasons to file their various
summary judgment exhibits containing Plaintiff’s confidential and sensitive medical records
under seal, consistent with the Agreed Protective Order entered in this case, ECF No. 17.
Accordingly, for good cause shown, Defendants Deborah McGlone and Effie Laub’s
Motion to File Under Seal, ECF No. 57, and the Motion on Behalf of Defendants Zach Scott,
Mendel Reid, Mohamed Hashi Abib and Won Song to Withdraw Previous Filing and Motion to
File Deposition and Exhibit Under Seal, ECF No. 60, are both GRANTED. Defendants
Deborah McGlone and Effie Laub are hereby GRANTED LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL
certain medical records of Plaintiff as exhibits to their Motion for Summary Judgment.
However, as to Defendants Zach Scott, Mendel Reid, Mohamed Hashi Abib and Won Song’s
request, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to SEAL ECF No. 51, rather than to strike it for
purposes of refiling it under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: June 15, 2021 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE