# Arnold v. CooperSurgical, Inc.

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 31, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10384718

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** May 31, 2024
- **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/10384718

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

AMY ARNOLD,

Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:22-cv-1951
v. JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

COOPERSURGICAL, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Amy Arnold’s Motion to Seal. (Pl. Mot., ECF
No. 107.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES without prejudice Arnold’s Motion
to Seal.
While Arnold indicates her Motion is unopposed, the Court has an independent obligation
to ensure a seal of presumptively public records is warranted. There is a “strong presumption in
favor of openness” as to court records. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d
1165, 1179 (6th Cir. 1983). The party seeking to seal the records bears a heavy burden to overcome
the presumption of free access. Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d
299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016). “Only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of public
records.” In re Knoxville News–Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983). Therefore, the
seal must be narrowly tailored and the proponent of sealing must “analyze in detail, document by
document, the propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.” Shane Grp., Inc., 825
F.3d at 305 (quoting Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 548 (7th Cir. 2002)).
Arnold does not sufficiently justify why the exhibits identified in her Motion should be
sealed. It is not enough that her Motion is unopposed or that the exhibits are subject to the Parties’
protective order. Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 306–07. Accordingly, the Court DENIES without
prejudice Arnold’s Motion. Arnold is DIRECTED to file a renewed Motion to Seal WITHIN
SEVEN DAYS of this Order that complies with the Sixth Circuit’s standard for sealing a court
filing.

Additionally, the Court EXTENDS the Parties’ deadline to submit Confidential Settlement
Assessments to SEVEN DAYS before the Settlement Conference scheduled in the Court’s Order
Setting Trial Date and Settlement Conference. (ECF No. 106.)
This case remains open.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

5/31/2024 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10384718. Public record. Not legal advice.