Doe v. Teays Valley Local School Board of Education

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

JANE DOE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Civil Action 2:23-cv-02704

Judge Edmund A. Sargus

Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

TEAYS VALLEY LOCAL SCHOOL

BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

On August 12, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion for a Rule 35 Mental Examination of

Plaintiff John Doe. (Doc. 32). Here, Plaintiffs request Leave to File Under Seal depositions and

accompanying exhibits they intend to attach to the response to Defendants’ motion. For the

following reasons, the Motion (Doc. 34) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part without

prejudice.

I. STANDARD

Courts distinguish between limiting public disclosure of information during discovery

versus the adjudicative stage of a case. See Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan,

825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016). “The line between these two stages, discovery and adjudicative,

is crossed when the parties place material in the court record.” Id. (citing Baxter Int’l, Inc. v.

Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002)). “Unlike information merely exchanged between

the parties, ‘[t]he public has a strong interest in obtaining the information contained in the court

record.’” Id. (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1180 (6th

Cir. 1983)). For this reason, the moving party has a “heavy” burden of overcoming a “‘strong

presumption in favor of openness’ as to court records.” Id. (quoting Brown & Williamson, 710

F.2d at 1179); see also id. (“Only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of

judicial records.” (quotation omitted)).

“[I]n civil litigation, 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 (such as the name of a minor victim of a sexual assault), is typically enough to

overcome the presumption of access.” Id. at 308 (citation and quotations omitted). “[T]he seal

itself must be narrowly tailored to serve” the reason for sealing, which requires the moving party

to “analyze in detail, document by document, the propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal

citations.” Id. at 305–06 (quotation omitted). Ultimately, the movant must show that “disclosure

will work a clearly defined and serious injury ... And in delineating the injury to be prevented,

specificity is essential.” Id. at 307–08 (internal citations and quotations omitted). If there is a

compelling reason, “the party must then show why those reasons outweigh the public interest in

access to those records.” Kondash v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 767 F. App’x 635, 637 (6th Cir. 2019)

(citing Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305).

The Court “has an obligation to keep its records open for public inspection [and] that

obligation is not conditioned upon the desires of the parties to the case.” Harrison v. Proctor &

Gamble Co., No. 1:15-CV-514, 2017 WL 11454396, at *1–2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 11, 2017) (citing

Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 307). The court “that chooses to seal court records must set forth specific

findings and conclusions ‘which justify nondisclosure to the public.’” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at

306 (citing Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1176). In sum, to overcome “the strong presumption

in favor of openness,” parties who move to seal documents must demonstrate: “(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, 767 F. App’x at

637.

II. DISCUSSION

Given the nature of the claims in this matter (see generally Doc. 9 (amended complaint)),

and because Plaintiff John Doe is a minor, the Court previously allowed him, and his mother, to

proceed anonymously. (Doc. 4). Here, Plaintiffs seek to seal depositions and accompanying

exhibits that they intend to file in support of their response to Defendants’ Rule 35 motion. (Doc.

34). Plaintiffs contend that the response to the motion itself uses a pseudonym for John Doe. (Id.

at 3). But the depositions and exhibits supporting the response use John Doe’s initials rather than

a pseudonym. (Id.). They fear his initials would allow the public to easily ascertain his identity.

(Id. at 3–4). And in some of the accompanying exhibits, John Doe’s full name is “clearly visible.”

(Id. at 4). Plaintiffs also say there is a wealth of other information contained in the documents that

could be used to identify John Doe or his parents, or that details the sexual assault of John Doe.

(Id. (noting that the deposition and exhibits contain addresses, phone numbers, employment

information, text messages and photographs between John Doe and Defendant Davis, and

investigation notes)). The Court agrees that sealing some of the content at issue is justified.

A. Personally Identifiable Information

To begin, Plaintiffs seek to seal information that either identifies or could be used to

identify Plaintiff John Doe or his parents. There is a compelling interest in protecting Plaintiff’s

privacy in this respect. Federal Rule of Civil Procure 5.2(a) recognizes a compelling interest in

protecting the name of a minor individual from disclosure in Court filings. And the Court agrees

that there is also a compelling interest in sealing portions of documents that refer to John Doe by

his initials when those initials may be used to ascertain his identity, and in sealing portions of

documents that contain his or his parents’ personally identifying information. Edelstein v.

Stephens, No. 1:17-cv-00305, 2018 WL 4854593, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 5, 2018) (discussing that

courts in the Sixth Circuit order records to be sealed when they contain “personal identifying

information that must be protected from disclosure” and information that involves minors); In re

Flint Water Cases, No. 517CV10164JELMKM, 2021 WL 2254064, at *2 (E.D. Mich. May 20,

2021) (holding that identifying information of minors and addresses of minors are appropriate to

seal); In re Flint Water Cases, No. 516CV10444JELMKM, 2021 WL 1877018, at *2 (E.D. Mich.

Apr. 21, 2021) (allowing the reaction of personally sensitive information including addresses,

phone numbers, account numbers, and the name of a minor child). Simply put, Plaintiffs’ privacy

interests weigh strongly in favor of sealing John Doe’s name and initials, John Doe’s parents’

names, addresses, phone numbers, and John Doe’s parents’ employment information.

Next, the public’s interest is two-fold. First, the public has an interest in this action

generally, due to the nature of Plaintiffs’ allegations that administrators at a public school failed

to respond to the sexual harassment of John Doe. (See Doc. 9). But the public also has an interest

in protecting the identifying information of a minor plaintiff. Doe v. Plymouth-Canton Cmty. Sch.,

No. 19-10166, 2021 WL 5541939, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 12, 2021) (“The public interest here is

in the protection of the identifying and medical information of a minor child.”). It is not necessary

to know John Doe’s identity, or information like his addresses or initials that may lead to the

discovery of his identity, to understand this action or to understand Plaintiffs’ response to the Rule

35 motion.

But the request is broader than what is required to protect the interests at stake. Plaintiffs

want to seal the depositions and the exhibits in their entirety. (Doc. 34). Plaintiff John Doe’s

name and initials, his parents’ names, addresses, phone numbers, and his parent’s employment

information can be easily redacted from the public docket without wholesale sealing. Redacting

only this information strikes the proper balance between Plaintiff’s privacy and the public’s

interest in disclosure.

B. Sexual Assault Details

The Court now turns to Plaintiffs’ request to seal “private” details of John Doe’s sexual

assault contained in the depositions and exhibits. As support for this request, Plaintiffs say putting

these details in the public record would “compromise [John Doe’s] privacy”; “violate the very

privacy the pseudonyms were designed to protect”; and “unfairly [subject] him to embarrassment

and ridicule.” (Doc. 34 at 4). Of course, the Court recognizes that details of sexual assault are

highly personal, and both John Doe’s status as a minor and the nature of this case led the Court to

allow Plaintiffs to proceed anonymously. (See Doc. 4).

However, Plaintiffs do not detail how redacting this information furthers Plaintiff’s privacy

interests under the Shane Group standard, especially if all the information that could be used to

identify him or his parents is already redacted. Nor do they cite case law shedding light on the

issue. Additionally, they have not argued why such privacy interests outweigh the public interest

in disclosure, particularly when the claims in this case concern the sexual harassment, grooming,

and abuse of Plaintiff. (See generally Doc. 9). Neither have they provided the Court with an in

camera copy of the documents at issue or a line-by-line analysis as required under Shane Group.

825 F.3d at 305–06. The Court, then, has very little information on which it can make the findings

and conclusions required under Shane Group to seal. In other words, Plaintiffs have not met their

burden to show that sealing or redacting these details balances the relevant interests and is narrowly

tailored. Accordingly, Plaintiffs may not, on this motion, redact these portions of the depositions

or accompanying exhibits.

***

Therefore, for purpose of Plaintiffs’ response to the Rule 35 motion, the Court grants

permission to file the depositions and accompanying exhibits under seal. But Plaintiffs must file

a redacted version to the public docket as well. In the public filing, Plaintiffs may redact the

information that identifies John Doe or his parents, or the information discussed in this Order that

could lead to the identification of John Doe or his parents. Additionally, Plaintiffs may redact

exhibits, and portions of the depositions quoting those exhibits, to the extent they identify the same.

Plaintiffs may not, at this juncture, redact any other information from the public docket.

Should Plaintiffs wish to renew the latter part of their request under the standard set forth in Shane

Group, they must do so on or before August 21, 2024. See Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305–06 (“The

proponent of sealing therefore must ‘analyze in detail, document by document, the propriety of

secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.’”). If they choose this route, Plaintiffs must also

send the deposition transcripts and exhibits in question for in camera review to

jolson_chambers@ohsd.uscourts.gov. If Plaintiffs seek to further redact only portions of the

deposition transcripts or exhibits, they should send both an unredacted version and a redacted

version. Finally, the Court may adjust the briefing schedule of the Rule 35 motion and/or the case

schedule if Plaintiffs renew their request.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Doc. 34) is

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part without prejudice. Plaintiffs are GRANTED

permission to file the depositions and exhibits under seal and are ORDERED to file a redacted

copy of the depositions and exhibits, as described in this Order, to the public docket with their

response on or before August 22, 2024. Should Plaintiffs choose to renew this motion under the

proper standard, that renewed motion is due on or before August 21, 2024.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: August 15, 2024 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson

KIMBERLY A. JOLSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE