# Davis v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 27, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10380183

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** May 27, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10380183

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing the justifications for the “strong presumption in favor of openness”

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10380183. Public record. Not legal advice.