The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
BILLY RAY HEGGIE,
Plaintiff, Case No. 3:21-cv-00056
v. Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Alistair E. Newbern
SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
This civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arises from the pretrial detention
of pro se Plaintiff Billy Ray Heggie at the Dickson County Jail in Charlotte, Tennessee. (Doc.
No. 20.) Heggie alleges that he told jail officials that he had cancer on his left temple, two cracked
vertebrae in his back, neuropathy, Hepatitis C, and that his nose ran when he ate, but that jail
officials denied him medical treatment and told Heggie to have his family cancel his scheduled
surgeries. (Id.) Heggie further alleges that he has experienced severe pain, loss of sight in his left
eye, and loss of hearing in his left ear and brings claims for monetary damages against
Defendants Dickson County, Tennessee; Southern Health Partners; and against Nurses Kim Judy,
Leah Hodges, and Crystal Chappell; and Nurse Practitioner Barry Trent Dority in their individual
capacities. (Id.)
The defendants have moved for summary judgment (Doc. No. 49) and filed a motion for
leave to file exhibits to their motion for summary judgment under seal (Doc. No. 50). The
defendants state that they intend to file Heggie’s medical records as an exhibit to their motion for
summary judgment, and that those records should be sealed because they “contain confidential
medical information . . . that should not be accessible to the general public.” (Id. at PageID# 199,
¶ 3.) Heggie has not responded to the motion to seal.
“The public has a strong interest in obtaining the information contained in the court
record[,]” and there is “a ‘strong presumption’” that court records be open. Shane Grp. v. Blue
Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (alteration omitted) (quoting Brown
& Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1179–80 (6th Cir. 1983)). This
presumption of openness rest on the idea that, among other things, “the public is entitled to assess
for itself the merits of judicial decisions” and has a strong interest in viewing the evidence and
arguments on which courts base those decisions. Id. A party seeking to seal court documents
therefore bears a heavy burden: “Only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of
judicial records.” Id. (quoting In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir.
1983)). In general, “only trade secrets, information covered by a recognized privilege (such as the
attorney-client privilege), and information required by statute to be maintained in confidence is
typically enough to overcome the presumption of public access.” M.D. Tenn. R. 5.03(a) (contents
of motion to seal). The party seeking to seal all or part of a record “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 Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Lab’ys, 297 F.3d 544, 548 (7th Cir.
2002)); see also M.D. Tenn. R. 5.03(a) (requiring that motions to seal “specifically analyz[e] in
detail, document by document, the propriety of secrecy, providing factual support and legal
citations”).
The Court finds that the defendants’ reference to private information in Heggie’s medical
records is not enough to justify sealing the presumptively public court records at issue here. Cf.
Tysons v. Regency Nursing, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-91, 2018 WL 632063, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 30,
2018) (finding that “‘a mere reference to HIPAA does not mean that the Court should automatically
grant [defendant’s] motion to seal”). Heggie placed his medical condition at issue by filing this
action alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by denying him medical
treatment. (Doc. No. 20.) Courts in this circuit recognize that “plaintiffs who place their medical
condition at issue waive any applicable privileges or statutory protections that their medical
records would have otherwise had.” Tyson, 2018 WL 632063, at *1; see also Kitchen v. Corizon
Health, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-190, 2017 WL 5197115, at *2 n.3 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 10, 2017)
(‘Prisoners claiming deliberate indifference to serious medical needs place their medical condition
and the medical care that they have received directly at issue and thereby waive whatever
privileges or statutory protection the medical records may have previously enjoyed under
HIPAA.”), rev'd in part on other grounds sub nom. Kitchen vy. Snyder, No. 20-1936, 2021 WL
4470032 (6th Cir. June 23, 2021); Mathews v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 1:98-CV-00106,
2014 WL 1681693, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 28, 2014) (denying motion to seal and finding that
plaintiff “waived any right to confidentiality of her medical records when she made her medical
condition and diagnoses at issue”).
Accordingly, the defendants’ motion to file Heggie’s medical records under seal (Doc.
No. 50) is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.
aligtory noleeir
ALIS E. NEWBERN
United States Magistrate Judge