# Harter v. Franklin County Department of Sanitary Engineers

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · September 11, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10665314

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** September 11, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10665314

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10665314. Public record. Not legal advice.