The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Mohammed Shahid, D.P.M., :
:
Plaintiff, : Case No. 1:24-cv-67
:
v. : Judge Susan J. Dlott
:
Charles Gregg Cobb., et al., : Order Denying Motion to File Exhibits
: Under Seal and Striking Motion to
Defendants. : Dismiss and Compel Subject to
: Refiling
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to File Exhibits Under Seal by Defendants
Charles Gregg Cobb, Rodney Roof, and TriHealth G, LLC (“TriHealth”). (Doc. 6.) Plaintiff
Mohammed Shahid, D.P.M., initiated this employment action on February 13, 2024. (Doc. 1.)
He asserts the following claims: (1) breach of contract against TriHealth; (2) violation of 42
U.S.C. § 1981 against all Defendants; (3) violation of Title VII against TriHealth; (4) violation of
Ohio Rev. Code § 4112 against all Defendants; and (5) declaratory judgement and injunctive
relief.
On April 12, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration, or in
the Alternative, Stay the Proceedings and/or Motion for Abeyance (Doc. 7) along with the
Motion to File Exhibits Under Seal (Doc. 6). Defendants seek to file under seal Shahid’s
Professional Employment Agreement1 between himself and TriHealth, which is also the
agreement upon which Shahid bases his breach of contract and declaratory judgment/injunctive
relief claims. This document contains the arbitration clause upon which Defendants base their
argument for dismissal and/or stay.
1 The Court obtained a copy of the Professional Employment Agreement from Defendants and
reviewed the document in camera.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files.” Nixon v. Warner
Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). Pursuant to 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.”
While a court has discretion to seal court records, that discretion 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)). This presumption arises because “[t]he public
has a strong interest in obtaining the information contained in the court record . . . [including] an
interest in ascertaining what evidence and records” a court relies upon in making its decision.
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)).
“To meet this burden, the party must show three things: (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 America, Inc., 767
F. App’x 635, 637 (6th Cir. 2019). Further, the proponent of sealing must “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)).
2
The Sixth Circuit has held that exceptions to maintaining openness of court documents
fall into two categories: (1) exceptions “based on the need to keep order and dignity in the
courtroom”; and (2) “content-based exceptions,” which include “certain privacy rights of
participants or third parties, trade secrets and national security.” Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d
at 1179. “[I]n civil litigation, only trade secrets, information covered by a recognized privilege,
and information required by statute to be maintained in confidence is typically enough to
overcome” the presumption of openness. 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
Defendants have not met their burden to seal Shahid’s Professional Employment
Agreement. The document is a standard employment agreement containing details about
Shahid’s job responsibilities, compensation, termination of the agreement, confidentiality,
restrictive covenants, and arbitration, among other terms. Defendants broadly contend that
public disclosure of this document would cause competitive and financial harm without
explaining or showing in detail how this is so and pointing out any particular provision within
the Professional Employment Agreement. Further, the document is essential to the claims of this
case as well as Defendants’ defense that Plaintiff is subject to mandatory arbitration. In short,
Defendants failed to meet their burden to justify sealing this document.
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to File Exhibits Under Seal (Doc. 6) is DENIED.
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration, or in the Alternative, Stay the
Proceedings and/or Motion for Abeyance (Doc. 7) is STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD.
Defendants are instructed to refile as follows. First, Defendants are to file a “Notice of Filing
Exhibits in Support of Motion to Dismiss and Compel,” individually attaching each separate
3
document upon which it relies in support of its Motion to Dismiss and/or Compel, including the
Professional Employment Agreement upon which it heavily relies. Document numbers and
PageID numbers are generated upon filing these documents. Second, Defendant are to refile
their Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration, or in the Alternative, Stay the Proceedings
and/or Motion for Abeyance and cite the Document numbers and PageID numbers of the
previously attached exhibits upon which it relies in its Motion. Defendants must refile their
documents within seven days of entry of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Susan J. Dlott___________________
Judge Susan J. Dlott
United States District Court
4