The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
MELINDA OLIVER-SMITH, :
:
Plaintiff, : Case No. 1:23-cv-276
:
vs. : Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins
:
LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE
:
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
ORDER
This case is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Defendant to File the
Administrative Record and Supplemental Production Under Seal (Doc. 19) (the “Joint
Motion to Seal”).
I. BACKGROUND
This case arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29
U.S.C §§ 1001, et seq. The parties dispute Plaintiff’s entitlement to long term disability
benefits under a group insurance policy issued to Plaintiff’s former employer. Doc. 19,
PageID 74. Here, as in other ERISA cases, the parties are expected to file cross-motions for
judgment on the Administrative Record. The Administrative Record contains the materials
that Defendants relied on when it made the benefit determination at issue in this case. The
parties now jointly ask that Defendants be permitted to file the Administrative Record under
seal.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
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.
III. ANALYSIS
The parties seek to file the entirety of the Administrative Record under seal because
it contains voluminous medical records and documents containing personal identifiers and
sensitive medical and financial information, publication of which would subject Plaintiff to
potential harm, embarrassment, or humiliation. Doc. 19, PageID 75–76. Because the
Administrative Record is both voluminous and replete with sensitive information, the parties
assert that redaction would present a high risk of inadvertent disclosure of confidential
information, would be extremely time consuming and burdensome, and would leave little of
value to the public’s interest. Id.
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 the importance of protecting Plaintiff's private
health information outweighs the public's interest in accessing records and documents
related thereto. Person v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co., No. 1:22-CV-98, 2023 WL 7412856,
at *2 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 31, 2023) (Hopkins, J.); 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).
Although the parties seek to file the entire Administrative Record under seal, the
circumstances demonstrate that the request is in fact no broader than necessary. See Person,
2023 WL 7412856 at *2 (finding sealing of the entire Administrative Record no broader
than necessary when the Administrative Record is replete with sensitive information);
Price v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins., Co., No. 1:21-cv-656, 2022 WL 656613, at *1 (S.D.
Ohio March 4, 2022) (same); Jalali v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 2:20-CV-5071, 2021
WL 5240229, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 2, 2021) (same). Additionally, the Court agrees that,
“Tt]o the extent the public has any interest in this litigation, the pleadings and briefs will be
fully available to the public to assess the merits of any decision by the Court.” Doc. 19,
PagelID 76.
Accordingly, Defendants shall be permitted to file the Administrative Record under
seal. However, if upon review of the Administrative Record the Court determines that
redaction is feasible, the Court will lift or modify this Order.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, the Joint Motion to Seal (Doc. 19) is hereby
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 17, 2024 ! Lalor
fe Hgkins
United States District Judge