Harmon v. Honeywell Intelligrated

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

MALISSA R. HARMON, Case No. 1:19-cv-670

Plaintiff, Cole, J.

Litkovitz, M.J.

vs.

HONEYWELL INTELLIGRATED, ORDER

Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on defendant Honeywell Intelligrated (“Honeywell”)’s

motion for leave to file its motion for summary judgment and supporting documentation under

seal. (Doc. 74).

I. Background

Plaintiff Malissa Harmon brings this employment discrimination action against

Honeywell alleging claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42

U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C § 623

et seq., the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k), the Family Medical

Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”), 18 U.S.C. §

1514A, and state law. (Doc. 19; see Docs. 29, 35).

Honeywell has indicated it is prepared to move for summary judgment. (Doc. 74). In the

pending motion to seal, Honeywell requests to file its “Motion for Summary Judgment with

incorporated Memorandum in Support,” “Defendant’s Appendix of Exhibits in Support of

Summary Judgment,” and the “Deposition transcript of Plaintiff Malissa R. Harmon, with

Exhibits” under seal upon filing with the Court. (Id. at PAGEID 1831).

II. Standard of Review

Under Local Rule 5.2.1(a), “parties may not file documents under seal without obtaining

leave of Court upon motion and for good cause shown.” A court’s discretion to seal its own

records and files is limited by the “‘strong presumption in favor of openness’ as to court

records.” Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016)

(quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1179 (6th Cir. 1983)).

See also Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) (“Every court has

supervisory power over its own records and files.”). This openness presumption owes to the

public’s “strong interest in obtaining the information contained in the court record . . .

[including] an interest in ascertaining what evidence and records” a court relies upon for its

decisions. Lipman v. Budish, 974 F.3d 726, 753 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Brown & Williamson,

710 F.2d at 1180-81). The party seeking to seal court records carries the heavy burden of

overcoming this presumption, and “[o]nly the most compelling reasons can justify non-

disclosure of judicial records.” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305 (quoting In re Knoxville News-

Sentinel Co., Inc., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983)). Additionally, the Court is required to set

forth specific findings and conclusions justifying the sealing of records—regardless of whether a

party objects. Id. at 306.

To justify sealing records, the proponent must demonstrate: “(1) a compelling interest in

sealing the records; (2) that the interest in sealing outweighs the public’s interest in accessing the

records; and (3) that the request is narrowly tailored.” Kondash v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 767 F.

App’x 635, 637 (6th Cir. 2019) (citing Shane Group, 825 F.3d at 305). The proponent must also

“analyze in detail, document by document, the propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal

citations.” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305-06 (quoting Baxter Intern., Inc. v. Abbott Lab’ys, 297

F.3d 544, 548 (7th Cir. 2002)).

As relevant here, the Sixth Circuit recognizes certain content-based exceptions to the

presumption of openness related to “certain privacy rights of participants or third parties. . . .”

Brahmamdam v. TriHealth, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-152, 2021 WL 5005368, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 27,

2021) (quoting Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1179). In the context of civil litigation, this

exception is generally limited to “only trade secrets, information covered by a recognized

privilege, and information required by statute to be maintained in confidence. . . .” Id. (quoting

Reese on Behalf of Fifth Third Bancorp v. Carmichael, No. 1:20-cv-886, 2020 WL 6810921, at

*1 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 16, 2020)).

III. Analysis

Defendant seeks a blanket order sealing its forthcoming motion for summary judgment,

the appendix of exhibits in support of the forthcoming motion for summary judgment, and the

deposition transcript of plaintiff. Honeywell argues that the “above-reference[d] documents

contain information that has been deemed confidential subject to the parties’ Stipulated

Protective Order, entered August 17, 2021.” (Doc. 74, citing Doc. 50). Honeywell contends the

“forthcoming filings will include confidential medical information, private personnel

information, and proprietary corporate information,” and “the parties’ Stipulated Protective

Order requires that any motions filed with the Court containing reference to information covered

as confidential be filed under Seal.” (Id.).

The Court recognizes there may be a compelling interest in maintaining the

confidentiality of medical records and certain personnel information, as well as proprietary

corporate information. It is not the Court’s prerogative to assume, however, that the entirety of

every document filed in connection with the parties’ briefs in this case must be sealed.! To do so

would reflect consideration of only the first of the three Shane Group factors. See Kondash, 767

F. App’x at 637. As the party seeking to seal these documents, defendant carries the heavy

burden of overcoming the presumption of openness document-by-document with reference to

specific reasons and/or legal citations. Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305-06. Defendant’s motion

must be sufficiently specific to allow the Court to, in turn, set forth specific findings and

conclusions justifying the sealing of each document—tegardless of whether plaintiff objects. Jd.

at 306.

Defendant’s motion to seal (Doc. 74) is therefore DENIED subject to reconsideration

upon the submission of a motion consistent with the law summarized above. The Court notes

that in the event any future motion to seal is granted, a redacted version of the motion for

summary judgment, appendix of exhibits in support of the motion for summary judgment, and

the deposition transcript of plaintiff will be required to be filed on the Court’s docket.

IT ISSO ORDERED.

Date: _ 3/19/2022 Warn Rothe

Karen L. Litkovitz

Chief United States Magistrate Judge

*For example, defendant has not provided any specific reasons why information related

to plaintiffs SOX claim should be redacted.