“Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files.”
How later courts described this case
- “Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
BRANDON HINES, Case No. 1:21-cv-409
Plaintiff, Marbley, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
vs.
HUMANA INSURANCE
COMPANY, ORDER
Defendant.
Plaintiff Brandon Hines brings this employment discrimination action against Humana
Insurance Company alleging violations of federal and state law. This matter is before the Court
on plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to file under seal exhibits in support of his opposition
to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 38).
I. 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.” S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 5.2.1(a). 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 Grp., 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)).
II. Analysis
In the motion to seal, plaintiff requests to file three exhibits, Exhibits 2, 3, and 8 to
plaintiff’s declaration, in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment under seal.
(Doc. 38). Exhibits 2 and 3 are medical records containing private information regarding
plaintiff’s diagnosis and treatment, and Exhibit 8 contains medical documentation relating to a
non-party comparator for one of plaintiff’s discrimination claims. (Id. at PAGEID 605-06).
The Court is persuaded that Exhibits 2 and 3 to plaintiff’s declaration which contain
private information regarding plaintiff’s diagnosis and treatment should be sealed. Plaintiff
contends, “[w]hile recognizing the policy underlying the Shane decision, the privacy of medical
information can overcome the public’s interest in open courts.” (Id. at PAGEID 606, citing
Price v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. 1:21-cv-656, 2022 WL 656613 (S.D. Ohio Mar.
4, 2022)). Plaintiff has proffered compelling reasons for sealing these exhibits and has shown
why the interest in sealing these exhibits outweighs the public’s right to obtain information in the
Court’s record. “Courts have recognized a person’s interest in the privacy of their health
information as a legitimate basis for sealing.” Frohn v. Globe Life and Accident Ins. Co., No.
1:19-cv-713, 2022 WL 1555104, at *1 (S.D. Ohio May 17, 2022) (citing Patel v. Aetna, No.
2:17-cv-78, 2018 WL 2268147, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 3, 2018) and Bown v. Vore, No. 3:07-cv-
375, 2009 WL 2393117, at *5 n.2 (S.D. Ohio July 30, 2009)). See also Harrison v. Scott, No.
2:18-cv-1023, 2021 WL 2438858, at *2 (S.D. Ohio June 15, 2021) (sealing summary judgment
exhibits containing the plaintiff’s confidential and sensitive medical records); In re E.I. Du Pont
de Nemours & Co. C-8 Pers. Inj. Litig., Nos. 2:13-md-2433, 2:18-cv-00136, 2019 WL 3208711,
at *1 (S.D. Ohio July 16, 2019) (sealing medical records and private health information because
“the strong federal policy in protecting the nondisclosure of private health information . . .
outweigh[s] the public’s interest in disclosure of these materials in this case and serves the strong
policy of protecting patient information”) (citing Law v. Zuckerman, 307 F. Supp. 2d 705, 711
(D. Md. 2004); Turk v. Oiler, 732 F. Supp. 2d 758, 771 (N.D. Ohio 2010); Shane Grp., 825 F.3d
at 305).
Likewise, the Court is persuaded that Exhibit 8 to plaintiff’s declaration which contains
medical documentation relating to a non-party comparator for one of plaintiff’s discrimination
claims should be sealed. Plaintiff contends the “documents should be sealed because they
contain private medical information and because the employee is not a party to this case.” (Doc.
38 at PAGEID 606). It is well established that the “‘privacy interests of innocent third parties
should weigh heavily in a court’s balancing equation.’” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305 (quoting
United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)). See In re E.I. Du Pont de
Nemours & Co. C-8 Pers. Inj. Litig., 2019 WL 3208711, at *1 (granting motion to seal
documentation surrounding the health information of a non-party).
Moreover, plaintiff’s motion to seal is narrowly tailored because plaintiff does not seek to
seal the entirety of the exhibits contained in his declaration. Instead, plaintiff seeks to seal only
three exhibits that contain medical records, diagnoses, and treatment. Further, plaintiff will be
required to file redacted versions of these exhibits on the Court’s docket, which will be available
to the public. The proposal to seal the three exhibits relating to medical records is “no broader
than necessary to address the compelling reason for non-disclosure.” Luxottica of Am. Inc. v.
Allianz Glob. Risks US Ins. Co., No. 1:20-cv-698, 2021 WL 735205, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 25,
2021) (internal citations omitted). See also Wiggins v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 2:19-cv-3223,
2020 WL 7056479, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 2, 2020) (holding that the motion to seal was
“narrowly tailored” because the party sought “not to seal these exhibits in their entirety, but
rather, to file redacted versions on the public docket”).
Accordingly, with the understanding that plaintiff will file redacted versions of Exhibits
2, 3, and 8 on the Court’s docket, which will be available to the public, plaintiff’s motion for
leave to file under seal (Doc. 38) is GRANTED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff shall file, under seal, Exhibits 2, 3, and 8 to plaintiffs declaration in plaintiff’s
forthcoming response in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
2. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file the redacted versions of the stated exhibits on the docket
of the Court.
IT ISSO ORDERED.
Date: 2/17/2023 Harun K Kethov
Karen L. Litkovitz
Chief United States Magistrate Judge