Harter v. Franklin County Department of Sanitary Engineers

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

KATHLEEN HARTER,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:23-cv-2995

Judge Edmund A. Sargus

Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD

OF COMISSIONERS, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Second Joint Motion to File Documents

Under Seal (Doc. 26). For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED

in part.

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 Mich.,

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. Inc., 825 F.3d at 305). The court “that chooses to seal court records must set

forth specific findings and conclusions ‘which justify nondisclosure to the public.’” Shane Grp.,

Inc., 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

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants discriminated against her because of her disability, failed

to accommodate her, and retaliated against her in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act

(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and Ohio state law. (Doc. 8 at 1, 4–10). Relevant here, on

August 28, 2024, in anticipation of their dispositive motion deadline, the parties filed a joint

request to seal Plaintiff’s deposition transcript and several accompanying exhibits. (Doc. 17).

Because the motion did not comply with the requirements of Shane Group, the Court denied it

without prejudice and ordered the parties to re-file their motion within seven days. (Doc. 18). On

August 30, the parties filed their dispositive motions, and the Court extended “the deadline to

submit evidence supporting [the] motions . . . until the Court has resolved the question of whether

[Plaintiff’s] deposition transcript and exhibits may be filed under seal.” (Doc. 23).

Now, in their revised motion, the parties move to redact portions of Plaintiff’s deposition,

as well as Exhibits 13 and 16 of that deposition. (Doc. 16 at 2–3). They also ask to seal Exhibits

3, 17, and 18 of the deposition entirely. (Id.). The Court addresses each group of materials in turn.

A. Plaintiff’s Deposition

The parties wish to redact parts of the following pages of Plaintiff’s deposition transcript:

51, 52, 57, 69, 70, 73, 74, 113, 114, 116, 117, 124, 125, 126, 127, and 172. (Doc. 26 at 3). The

parties assert the proposed redactions are needed to protect Plaintiff’s privacy because these pages

of the transcript “refer to [Plaintiff’s medical] diagnoses or discuss her medical records.” (Id.).

But many of these redactions are unnecessary. Put simply, Plaintiff filed much of the information

contained in the redactions in her Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 22). For instance, on

pages 51 and 52, the parties redact Plaintiff’s diagnoses and her accompanying symptoms. But

Plaintiff cites these pages, lists her diagnoses, and discusses her symptoms in her unsealed motion

for summary judgment. (Doc. 22 at 3 (listing diagnoses of migraines, fibromyalgia, and chronic

fatigue syndrome), 15–16 (describing symptoms)). The same is true for the information provided

on pages 57, 69, 70, 73, 74, 113, 114, 116, 117, and 172. (See, e.g., id. at 3 (listing diagnoses also

discussed at deposition pages 69, 73, and 113), 8 (discussing information included in Exhibit 16

and on pages 116 and 117 of Plaintiff’s deposition), 15–16 (summarizing information also

included on pages 57, 69, 70, 73, 74, 113, 114, and 172 of the deposition)). At base, Plaintiff has

“no compelling interest” in redacting information that is “already publicly available.” S.R.X. v.

Fleming, No. 3:20-cv-126, 2020 WL 12991127, at *3 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 24, 2020). As a result, the

Court DENIES the parties’ request to redact pages 51, 52, 57, 69, 70, 73, 74, 113, 114, 116, 117,

and 172.

Yet the Undersigned finds the proposed redactions on pages 124, 125, 126, and 127 require

a different result. These portions discuss details from medical records that the parties also move

to seal in their entirety. (See generally Docs. 21, 22). Sealing medical records “is in accordance

with the strong public policy of HIPAA and Ohio Revised Code Section 2317.02(B) of protecting

patient information.” Harrison v. Scott, 2:18-cv-1023, 2021 WL 2438858, at *2 (S.D. Ohio June

15, 2021). And “[c]ourts have recognized a person’s interest in the privacy of their health

information as a legitimate basis for sealing.” Hines v. Humana Ins. Co., No. 1:21-cv-409, 2023

WL 2562723, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 17, 2023) (sealing plaintiff’s medical records in an

employment discrimination case); see also Harrison, 2021 WL 2438858, at *2 (sealing a plaintiff’s

medical records). Therefore, Plaintiff has a compelling interest in the non-disclosure of the

information discussed in these pages. What’s more, because Plaintiff’s diagnoses and symptoms

are discussed elsewhere, the public can understand the nature of her discrimination claims without

these redacted portions. Additionally, this request is narrowly tailored, as the proposed redactions

are mere sentences of Plaintiff’s deposition. In re E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Co. C-8 Personal

Injury Litig., No. 2:13-md-2433, 2:18-cv-136, 2019 WL 3208711, at *1 (S.D. Ohio July 16, 2019)

(finding a request to redact lines from a deposition was “no broader than necessary” to protect

medical information). In sum, the Court GRANTS the proposed redactions on pages 124, 125,

126, and 127 of Plaintiff’s deposition.

B. Exhibits 13 and 16

The parties also seek to redact parts of Exhibits 13 and 16 to Plaintiff’s deposition. But

once more, most of this information is available on the public docket.

To start, in Exhibit 13, the parties move to redact two blocks of information. The first lists

a referral to another medical provider, which the parties seemingly do not cite in their dispositive

motions. (See generally Docs. 21, 22). As discussed, Plaintiff has a compelling interest in

shielding her medical information, and the public does not need to view this referral to understand

the events underlying this lawsuit. Bodenhamer v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 1:20-cv-221, 2021

WL 6275231, at *1 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 2, 2021) (discussing that the court has allowed medical

information to be sealed when it was not “directly relevant to the issues in the cases”). Further,

the proposed redaction hides only two words. Consequently, the request is narrowly tailored to

protect Plaintiff’s private health information, and the Court GRANTS this proposed redaction.

But the other redaction discusses only Plaintiff’s symptoms and diagnoses, which she

includes in her summary judgment motion. (Compare Exhibit 13, No. 4 (discussing Plaintiff’s

diagnosis of long COVID syndrome and related symptoms) with Doc. 22 at 15–16 (listing

Plaintiff’s long COVID diagnosis and her symptoms of fatigue and shortness of breath)). Because

this information is publicly available, Plaintiff has no compelling interest in its non-disclosure,

S.R.X., 2020 WL 12991127, at *3, and these proposed redactions are DENIED. Similarly, the

proposed redactions for Exhibit 16 also contain details Plaintiff already disclosed. (Compare

Exhibit 16 (listing diagnoses of fibromyalgia, post-COVID syndrome, and migraines and

discussing related symptoms) with Doc. 22 at 15–16 (same)). So, these redactions, too, are

DENIED.

C. Exhibits 3, 17, and 18

Finally, the parties move to seal three medical records in their entirety: Exhibits 3, 17, and

18 of Plaintiff’s deposition. (Doc. 26 at 3–4). Again, the parties argue that Plaintiff’s right to

privacy outweighs any interest the public might have in accessing these records. (Id. at 4–5). The

Court agrees. As stated, Plaintiff has a compelling interest in the non-disclosure of her medical

records. See Hines, 2023 WL 2079520, at *2 (collecting cases where courts found private health

information warranted sealing or redacting); Bodenhamer, 2021 WL 6275231, at *2 (noting that

“wholesale public access to Plaintiff’s medical records is a significant invasion of privacy and

personal dignity”). Here, enough information is otherwise available for the public to understand

the basis for her claims and her disabilities. See Doe v. Plymouth-Canton Cmty. Sch., No. 19-

10166, 2021 WL 5541939, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 12, 2021) (allowing a minor plaintiff’s medical

information to be sealed where the public did not need to view it “to comprehend the events giving

rise to [the] dispute” or the arguments made by the parties). What’s more, these records contain

other personal identifiers, like Plaintiff’s address and telephone number. And practically, these

exhibits cannot be redacted, as they are filled with Plaintiff’s medical information, some of which

is not relevant to this case. Id. (noting a letter would be “rendered illegible” if all medical

information was redacted). As such, the Court finds this request is narrowly tailored and

GRANTS the parties’ motion to seal these exhibits.

III. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the parties’ Motion to Seal (Doc. 26) is GRANTED in part and

DENIED in part. Within seven days of the date of this Order, the parties are ORDERED to file

the unredacted deposition and exhibits under seal and to file the redacted versions on the public

docket. The parties need not include Exhibits 3, 17, or 18 in the public docket filing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: September 11, 2024 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson

KIMBERLY A. JOLSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE