The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
ANN MARIE MYERS, :
:
Plaintiff, : Case No. 1:18-cv-00144
:
vs. : Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins
:
AMERICAN EDUCATION SERVICES,
:
:
Defendant.
:
ORDER
This matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to
seal Defendant’s motions in limine and exhibits containing confidential materials (Doc. 179).
Plaintiff alleges that certain motions and exhibits containing confidential information relating
to her medical history should be redacted or sealed to protect her privacy interests. For the
reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 179) is GRANTED.
I. LAW AND ANALYSIS
A party seeking to seal court records bears the heavy burden of overcoming the “strong
presumption in favor of openness” as to court records. Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield,
825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 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) (citing Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1180–81).
Indeed, “[o]nly the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.”
In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., Inc., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983).
In order to meet its substantial burden, the party seeking to seal court records “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, 638 (6th Cir. 2019).
The moving party must therefore “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
Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs, 297 F.3d 544, 548 (7th Cir. 2002)). Likewise, when a district court
elects to seal court records, it must set forth specific findings and conclusions that justify
nondisclosure to the public. Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1176.
There are two motions in limine with accompanying exhibits at issue here.1 See Docs.
151, 152. These motions refer to Plaintiff’s confidential medical information. Two exhibits
attached thereto (Exhibit 3 to Doc. 151 and Exhibit 1 to Doc. 152) contain medical records
and treatment documents. Exhibit 1 also includes the deposition transcript for John Burik,
Plaintiff’s treating therapist, wherein he testified to his clinical observations, diagnoses, and
treatment decisions. Plaintiff argues, without opposition from Defendant, that public
disclosure of this information would harm her privacy interests. Doc. 179-1, PageID 2405–
07. Having reviewed the motions and the accompanying exhibits in camera, the Court agrees
that there is a compelling interest in redacting or sealing these documents, that such interest
1 Defendant also filed a motion in limine to establish authenticity and admissibility of Trans Union records. See
Doc. 155. Because the motion and accompanying exhibits contained personal financial information, Plaintiff also
sought for this motion and related exhibits to be filed under seal or redacted. The parties, however, have since
entered into a stipulation (Doc. 181) that renders Defendant’s motion in limine as moot. As a result, the Court need
not address whether the motion and accompanying exhibits shall be subject to seal or redactions.
outweighs the public’s interest, and that Plaintiff’s requests to seal or redact these documents
are narrowly tailored. See Kondash, 767 F. App’x at 638.
Looking to the strong federal policy protecting the non-disclosure of private health
information under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
(“HIPAA”), and the strict state statute governing Ohio’s physician-patient privilege, Ohio
Revised Code § 2317.02(B), it is clear that there is a compelling interest in sealing the
documents that contain Plaintiff’s medical information. See Swartz v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours
& Co. (In re E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.), No. 2:13-MD-2433, 2019 WL 3208711, at *1 (S.D.
Ohio July 16, 2019); see also Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. 171.54 Acres of Land, No. 2:17-
cv-70, 2021 WL 4260422 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 20, 2021). This Court’s in camera review of those
documents confirms that the importance of protecting Plaintiff’s private health information
outweighs the public’s interest in accessing medical records, treatment documents, and
testimony related thereto. Plaintiff seeks only to redact Defendant’s motions to the extent that
they describe her private health information and to seal the accompanying exhibits. Plaintiff’s
request to seal is therefore no broader than necessary to protect her privacy interests. Even
absent direct reference to Plaintiff’s specific medical information, the publicly-filed pleadings
and briefs will adequately serve the public’s minimal interest in this litigation.
II. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s unopposed motion seeking leave to seal or redact Defendant’s motions in
limine and exhibits (Doc. 179) is therefore GRANTED. Accordingly, Defendant shall file
redacted motions in limine (see Docs. 151, 152) that exclude reference to Plaintiff’s
confidential medical information. Defendant shall also file Exhibit 3 to Defendant’s motion
in limine to preclude testimony and records of medical professionals (see Doc. 151), and
Exhibit 1 to Defendant’s motion in limine to preclude testimony of John Burik (see Doc. 152),
under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
a g
June 11, 2024 KBr linn ( XBehs.
Jeffery P (Hopkins
United States District Judge