Davis v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

THOMAS L. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action 2:20-cv-843

Judge Sarah D. Morrison

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court for consideration of the Motion of Defendant

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company to File Motion for Summary Judgment and

Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony Under Seal and Memorandum in Support. (ECF No. 53.)

Defendant Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (“MassMutual”) seeks leave to file its

forthcoming Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony under

seal. (Id.)

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, MassMutual seeks to keep under seal a Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion

to Exclude Expert Testimony that “may be containing personal and sensitive medical

information in this matter.” (ECF No. 53.) MassMutual notes that “exhibits attached to both

motions also may contain personal medical information, including the outcome of certain

testing.” (Id.) The Court finds that protecting such information outweighs the public’s interest

in disclosure of these materials in this case. Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 305; In re Knoxville

News-Sentinel Co., Inc., 723 F.2d at 474, 477. The Court also finds that MassMutual’s proposal

is narrowly tailored and no broader than necessary to protect the information at issue. See In re

Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig., 927 F.3d at 939 (citations and internal quotation marks

omitted); Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 306.

Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Motion of Defendant Massachusetts Mutual Life

Insurance Company to File Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Exclude Expert

Testimony Under Seal and Memorandum in Support, ECF No. 53, is GRANTED. MassMutual

is hereby GRANTED LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL their forthcoming Motion for

Summary Judgment and Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony. MassMutual is also DIRECTED

to file a redacted version of the Motions WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS of the filing of the

Motions on the public docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: May 27, 2022 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers

ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE