The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION (DAYTON)
JACOB REIGELSPERGER, et al., : Case No. 3:25-cv-00148
:
Plaintiffs, : District Judge Michael J. Newman
: Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
vs. :
:
POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC., et al.,
:
Defendants. :
ORDER GRANTING POLARIS DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL (DOC. NO. 19)
Before the Court is the Motion for Leave to File Exhibit A to Response to Order to
Show Cause Under Seal (“Motion to Seal,” Doc. No. 19) filed by Defendants Polaris
Sales Inc. and Polaris Industries Inc. (“Polaris Defendants”). Polaris Defendants seek
leave to file a sealed exhibit to supplement their response to this Court’s Order to Show
Cause (“Order to Show Cause, Doc. No. 14.) For the following reasons, the Court
GRANTS the Motion to Seal.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
A party that seeks to seal court records bears a “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. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1179 (6th Cir. 1983). “Only the most
compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.” Id. Such compelling
reasons may include trade secrets, information protected by a recognized privilege, or
information protected by statute. Id. at 308. But even 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). And the extent of the seal “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.”
Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305-06 (quotation omitted). Ultimately, the movant must show,
with specificity, that “disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury.” Id. at
307-08 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
In sum, a party that seeks to seal documents filed with the Court 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. The Court must then make specific
findings and conclusions to justify sealing the records. Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 306
(citing Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1176).
II. RELEVANT FACTS
This dispute arose from injuries that Plaintiffs Jacob and Nikole Reigelsperger
allegedly sustained due to an accident that occurred during the operation of a Polaris
ATV. (Complaint, Doc. No. 8 at PageID 89-91.) Plaintiffs filed this action in the
Montgomery County Common Pleas Court. (Id.) Plaintiffs seek damages from Polaris
Defendants “in a sum in excess of $25,000.00,” plus pre-judgment interest, post-
judgment interest, and costs. (Id. at PageID 97-98.) Plaintiffs also seek declaratory-
judgment subrogation against Defendant United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“Defendant
United Healthcare”). (Id. at PageID 96.) Polaris Defendants, together with Defendant
United Healthcare, removed the lawsuit to this Court based upon diversity of citizenship
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Notice of Removal, Doc. No. 1.) After reviewing the Notice of
Removal, the undersigned Magistrate Judge issued an Order to Show Cause (Doc. No.
14) as to why this action should not be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Polaris Defendants seek leave to file under seal the Medical Payment Summary for
Plaintiff Nikole Reigelsperger (“Plaintiff”) as Exhibit A to their response to the Order to
Show Cause. (Motion to Seal, Doc. No. 19.) Polaris Defendants assert that the Medical
Payment Summary is protected under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act of 1996 (HIPAA) because it contains protected health information (PHI) and was
provided by the Plaintiff’s insurance company, UMR, Inc., a covered entity. (Id. at
PageID 152, 156 (citing Declaration of Zachary C. Maciaszek (“Maciaszek
Declaration”), Doc. No. 19-2 at PageID 159-60).) Polaris Defendants further argue that
the exhibit should be sealed because it “contains information specific to Plaintiff, is
material to the litigation, and will be provided as evidence of the amount in controversy.”
(Id. at PageID 152.)
III. ANALYSIS
The first step of the Shane Group test considers whether there is a compelling
interest in sealing the records. The Court is persuaded by Polaris Defendants’ argument
that they have a compelling interest in keeping the information contained in the Medical
Payment Summary out of the public eye:
Here, the Exhibit is a medical billing summary that is protected under the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), as it
contains protected health information (PHI) and was provided by the claims
administrator for Plaintiff’s health insurance plan, UMR, Inc., a covered
entity. (Maciaszek Decl. ¶¶ 3, 4.) The Exhibit contains sensitive medical
treatment information that is specific to the plaintiff, is material to the
litigation, and will be provided as evidence of the amount at controversy.
(Id. ¶ 5.) The requested seal is not overly broad as there is no compelling
reason for the public to access the Exhibit containing sensitive medical
information and PHI, as the information is not pertinent to the general
public’s understanding of the case. (Id. ¶ 6) Thus, the Exhibit should be
sealed to allow Polaris Defendants to fully respond to the Order to Show
Cause and establish proof that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
(Motion to Seal, Doc. No. 19-1 at PageID 156.)
The Sixth Circuit recognizes “content-based exceptions to the right of [public]
access [to court records] . . . to protect competing interests,” which include “certain
privacy rights of participants or third parties.” Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1165.
Significantly, this Court has held that a compelling interest can exist in sealing
documents that contain highly sensitive medical information. See, e.g., Harrison v. Scott,
No. 2:18-cv-1023, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111541, at *3-4 (S.D. Ohio June 15, 2021)
(Preston Deavers, M.J.) (sealing summary judgment exhibits containing the plaintiff’s
confidential and sensitive medical records); Siefert v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of
Commissioners, No. 1:17-cv-511, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150629, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Sept.
18, 2017) (Black, D.J.) (“Based upon the highly sensitive nature of the allegations
contained in the complaint, which include many details intimately related to medical care
received by a minor, the Court finds that there is significant justification for preventing
disclosure of the complaint to the public.”); Gibson v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., No.
1:23-cv-000695-JPH, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202161, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 6, 2024)
(Hopkins, D.J.) (finding a compelling interest to seal the administrative record that
“largely contain[ed] [the plaintiff’s] confidential personal and/or medical information”);
Cluck v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 2:18-cv-56, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203849, at
*4 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 25, 2019) (Preston Deavers, M.J.) (“Sealing Plaintiff's medical
records and private health information is in accordance with the strong policy of HIPAA
and Ohio Revised Code Section 2317.02(B) of protecting patient information.”) Based on
this authority, the Court agrees that Polaris Defendants have a compelling interest in
sealing the Medical Payment Summary.
The second step of the Shane Group test considers whether the compelling interest
in sealing court records outweighs the public’s interest in accessing the records. Here, the
Court finds that the interest in safeguarding Plaintiff’s sensitive medical information
outweighs the public interest in the information. Additionally, the Court has no reason to
believe that the particulars of Plaintiff’s private health information are relevant to the
public’s understanding of the matter at this time.
Finally, the third step of the Shane Group test considers whether the proposed seal
or redaction is narrowly tailored. This Court has recognized “the necessity of sealing
documents in their entirety if ‘confidential information is pervasive’ throughout the at-
issue records.” Gibson, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202161, at *5 (quoting Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Co. v. Conagra Foods, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-6347, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128872, at
*6 (S.D. Ohio July 12, 2021) (Preston Deavers, M.J.)). Here, the Medical Payment
Summary contains Plaintiff’s sensitive medical treatment and diagnostic information
(Motion to Seal, Doc. No. 19-1 at PageID 156; Maciaszek Declaration, Doc. No. 19-2 at
PageID 159), and so the Court finds that sealing the document in its entirety is “no
broader than necessary” to protect the information, because redaction may render the
document meaningless. Shane Group, 825 F.3d at 306.
For all of these reasons, the Court finds that (1) Polaris Defendants have a
compelling interest in sealing Plaintiff’s sensitive medical information, (2) this
compelling interest outweighs the public interest in release of the confidential
information, and (3) permitting Polaris Defendants to file the proposed exhibit under seal
is narrowly tailored to serve this compelling interest.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Polaris Defendants’ Motion to Seal (Doc. No. 19) is
GRANTED. Polaris Defendants are GRANTED LEAVE to file Exhibit A under seal
as an attachment to Polaris Defendants’ Response to this Court’s Order to Show Cause
(Doc. No. 14).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Caroline H. Gentry
Caroline H. Gentry
United States Magistrate Judge