Estate of Renato Marti v. Rice

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

ESTATE OF RENATO MARTI, Case No. 1:19-cv-980

Plaintiff, Barrett, J.

Litkovitz, M.J.

vs.

DELPHINE RICE, et al., ORDER

Defendants.

Plaintiff initiated this action alleging a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for unconstitutionally

inadequate medical care in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment and a state law

wrongful death claim under Ohio Revised Code § 2125.02. (Doc. 1). This matter is before the

Court on plaintiff’s motion for leave to file exhibits under seal or for an order to file on the

public docket. (Doc. 99).

I. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file exhibits under seal or for an order to file on the public

docket (Doc. 99)

Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to file exhibits in support of the opposition to

defendants’ motion for summary judgment under seal or, in the alternative, for an order directing

plaintiff to file the exhibits on the public docket. (Id.). In the motion, plaintiff identifies the

following documents that plaintiff seeks to file on the docket of the Court in support of the

response in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment1:

• Ex. 31 – NaphCare LPN Job Description

• Ex. 33 – “Nursing Protocol 101” Training Presentation

• Ex. 36 – Nursing Protocol: Head Injury

• Ex. 37 – Marti Progress Notes

• Ex. 51 & 52 – Rice/Spiers Training History

• Ex. 54 – “Documentation” Training Presentation

• Ex. 57 – Nursing Protocol: Abrasion/Laceration/Wound

• Ex. 58 – Delphine Rice Disciplinary Form

1 On July 15, 2022, plaintiff filed a redacted version of the response in opposition to defendants’ motion for

summary judgment. (Doc. 114).

• Ex. 63 – NaphCare Mortality Review

• Ex. 64 – Emails – Maria Perdikakis/Sgt. Pierce

• Ex. 65 – Emails – Maria Perdikakis/Delphine Rice

• Ex. 66 – Delphine Rice Disciplinary Form - Final Written Warning

(Id. at PAGEID 2773). Plaintiff argues that “these documents contain important evidence

demonstrating disputes of fact which should preclude summary judgment in this case.” (Id.).

Plaintiff states that counsel for plaintiff “conferred with counsel for Defendants via email,

seeking permission to file the above documents on the public docket and to make references to

their content in briefing filed on the public docket.” (Id.). Plaintiff states that defendants

“object[ed] to filing these documents and references to their content on the public docket”

because “their contents qualify as ‘Confidential Information’ not subject to public disclosure as

defined in the [parties’ stipulated protective] Order.” (Id.).

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

To the extent that defendants object to plaintiff filing the aforementioned documents on

the public docket, defendants are ORDERED to respond to plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 99) within

seven (7) days of the date of this Order, explaining, with specificity, why the documents should

be sealed pursuant to the factors articulated by the Sixth Circuit in Shane Group. As previously

stated by the Court (Doc. 92), defendants carry 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. Defendants’ response to plaintiff’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—regardless of whether plaintiff objects. Id. at 306.

Moreover, the Court recognizes there may be a compelling interest in maintaining the

confidentiality of certain documents. 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. Further, the fact that these documents may have been

marked “confidential” and produced pursuant to a protective order does not justify their sealing.

In Shane Group, the sole justification for sealing documents in that case was that the filings

included materials “designated as a confidential” pursuant to a joint protective order. Shane

Grp., 825 F.3d at 306. The Sixth Circuit held that such reasoning was “inadequate” to seal the

documents at issue because it was “brief” and “perfunctory.” Id. The Court of Appeals stated,

“In sealing all these documents and exhibits, the parties and the district court plainly conflated

the standards for entering a protective order under Rule 26 with the vastly more demanding

standards for sealing off judicial records from public view.” Id. at 307. The Sixth Circuit

explained that “a mere protective order [that] restricts access to discovery materials is not reason

enough, as shown above, to seal from public view materials that the parties have chosen to place

in the court record.” Id. (emphasis in original).

Accordingly, defendants are ORDERED to respond to plaintiff's motion (Doc. 99)

within seven (7) days of the date of this Order in a manner consistent with the law summarized

above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Karen L. Litkovitz

Chief United States Magistrate Judge