Clark v. 3M Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

ROBIN CLARK, as Representative of

the Estate of Brenda Butler, Deceased,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:24-cv-1587

Chief District Judge Sarah D. Morrison

Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

3M COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants,

OPINION & ORDER

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Certain Exhibits Under Seal (Doc. 92) is before the

Court. The Motion is DENIED. Defendants must file unredacted copies of the documents on the

public docket within seven (7) days of the date of this Order.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 16, 2014, former Plaintiff Brenda Butler underwent knee surgery at

OhioHealth Berger Hospital in Circleville, Ohio. (Doc. 68 at ¶¶ 9, 12). During the surgery,

Defendants’ Bair Hugger Warming Blanket product (“Bair Hugger”) “was used to keep parts of

[Ms. Butler’s] body warm.” (Id. at ¶ 12 (cleaned up)). The Bair Hugger allegedly caused Ms.

Butler to develop a periprosthetic joint infection (“PJI”), which led to additional complications,

treatments, and surgeries. (Id. at ¶¶ 15–18). Consequently, Ms. Butler filed this lawsuit against

Defendants on August 4, 2023, suing them under various Ohio and Minnesota state laws. (Id. at

¶¶ 125–246). But on December 21, 2024, Ms. Butler passed away. (Doc. 71). Shortly after her

death, Robin Clark, the representative of Ms. Butler’s estate, substituted as the party Plaintiff in

this action. (Docs. 82, 83, 84).

On June 4, 2025, Defendants filed timely dispositive and evidentiary motions. (Docs. 88,

89, 90, 91; see also Doc. 87 (scheduling order)). Because those motions included many redacted

exhibits, Defendants filed the instant Motion for leave to keep those exhibits redacted or under

seal on the public docket. (Doc. 92 (seeking leave to redact or seal twelve exhibits)).

The Court has reviewed the unredacted documents in camera (Doc. 93), and the matter is

ripe for review.

II. 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., 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., Inc., 825 F.3d at 307). A 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.

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants seek to seal or redact twelve exhibits attached to their dispositive and

evidentiary motions. (Doc. 92). Defendants divide the exhibits into two categories: (1) documents

containing Ms. Butler’s personal medical information, and (2) documents containing non-parties’

medical information. (Id. at 3–5 (saying Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 15, and 16 fall into the former,

and Exhibits 12, 13, 14, and 17 fall into the latter)). The Court finds Defendants do not meet their

burden to seal either set of exhibits.

Beginning with the first category, Defendants want to seal or redact the documents because

they contain “protected health information of Brenda Butler that is not directly referenced by

[Defendants’] Motion[s].” (Doc. 92 at 3–5). But Ms. Butler placed her “medical condition at

issue” by filing this lawsuit and arguably waived “any applicable privileges or statutory protections

that [her] medical records would have otherwise had.” Lockhart v. Marietta City Schools, No.

2:19-cv-2935, 2020 WL 5887005, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 5, 2020) (quoting Tyson v. Regency

Nursing, LLC, No. 3:17-cv-91, 2018 WL 632063, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 30, 2018)); see also Davis

v. City of Columbus, 2:17-cv-823, 2021 WL 7968412, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 2, 2021) (collecting

cases); Doe v. Brooks Automation US LLC, No. 3:24-cv-1284, 2025 WL 936659, at *4, 6 (M.D.

Tenn. Mar. 27, 2025). What’s more, Ms. Butler’s privacy interests are “diminished” since she

passed away during the pendency of this lawsuit. Cleaver v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co., No. 4:18-

cv-178, 2021 WL 1617811, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 26, 2011) (citation omitted).

Plus, the public’s interest in viewing the exhibits is not minimal. The medical information

is highly relevant to the issues in this case because Plaintiff sues over complications allegedly

caused by the Bair Hugger during Ms. Butler’s knee surgery. (Doc. 68 at ¶¶ 125–246). And the

Court likely will base its rulings on Defendants’ dispositive and evidentiary motions on the

exhibits. Lockhart, 2020 WL 5887005, at *2 (saying the public has an interest in viewing evidence

underlying court decisions, even if it is “deemed privileged or protected”); Tyson Regency Nursing,

LLC, 2018 WL 632063, at *2 (finding a strong public interest in viewing materials underlying a

court decision).

Finally, Defendants make little effort to narrowly tailor their request. Notably, some of the

unredacted materials reveal Ms. Butler’s medical information, though Defendants do not explain

why this information may be disclosed while other information should be sealed. (See, e.g., Ex.

16 at 3). Many of the redacted portions of the exhibits also do not contain Ms. Butler’s health

information at all. (See, e.g., Ex. 3 at 4–5; Ex. 2 at 2–7, 15–31; Ex. 8 at 2–11, 18–22, 24–35; 37–

43, 80–91; Ex. 15 at 9–22; Ex. 16 at 5–10). And others reference information that is summarized

elsewhere on the public docket. (See, e.g., Ex. 3 at 2–3; Ex. 2 at 11–13; Ex. 8 at 22, 24, 44–62,

66–69, 75–86; Ex. 15; Ex. 16 at 2; see also Doc. 90 at 5–6; Doc. 68 (summarizing Plaintiff’s

medical history)). See S.R.X. v. Fleming, No. 3:20-cv-126, 2020 WL 12991127, at *3 (W.D. Ky.

Apr. 24, 2020) (“The Court finds no compelling interest exists to seal materials that are already

publicly available.”); Ecolab, Inc. v. Ridley, No. 1:22-cv-050, 2023 WL 11762683, at *3 (E.D.

Tenn. July 13, 2023) (denying a request to seal an attachment that had been “part of the public

record of a court hearing” for four months).

Likewise, Defendants’ requests for the remaining exhibits are not narrowly tailored.

Defendants say these exhibits contain non-parties’ private health information. (Doc. 92 at 3–5).

To be sure, “the privacy interests of innocent third parties” can be a compelling reason to seal

documents. Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 308. Yet most of Defendants’ proposed redactions do

not include health information at all. For example, although Exhibit 12 names plaintiffs from other

lawsuits involving the Bair Hugger, the 225-page deposition does not mention their medical

history at all. (Ex. 12 (detailing an expert’s opinions on the Bair Hugger)). Large swaths of

Exhibits 13, 14, and 17 don’t either. And Defendants do not say whether these plaintiffs’ medical

information is publicly available in their lawsuits regarding the Bair Hugger.

At bottom, Defendants have not met their high burden to seal or heavily redact the exhibits

as requested. Their Motion (Doc. 92) is DENIED. Defendants must file the unredacted exhibits

on the public docket within seven (7) days of the date of this Order.

On a final note, the Court notes that Defendants did not follow this District’s procedures

for filing documents under seal. Local Rule 5.2.1 provides that “parties may not file documents

under seal without [first] obtaining leave of Court.” S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 5.2.1(a). Here, Defendants

filed their redacted exhibits without the Court’s permission and asked for leave after-the-fact. (See

Doc. 92 (filed after Docs. 88, 89, 90, and 91)). The parties are WARNED that if they fail to adhere

to Rule 5.2.1’s procedures in the future, the Court will order that the documents be unsealed.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Certain Exhibits Under

Seal (Doc. 92) is DENIED. Defendants are ORDERED to file unredacted copies of their exhibits

on the public docket within seven (7) days of the date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: June 20, 2025 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson

KIMBERLY A. JOLSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE