# Neisen

> District Court, M.D. Tennessee · December 1, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11212233

## Case

- **Full name:** Heather Neisen v. Rutherford County, Tennessee, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** December 1, 2025
- **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/11212233

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

HEATHER NEISEN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 3:25-cv-01072
)
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, )
TENNESSEE, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

ORDER
Heather Neisen, a resident of Murfreesboro, Tennessee, filed a pro se, in forma pauperis
Amended Complaint alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 12132, 12203; 29 U.S.C. § 794;
and “ADA Title II and Section 504,” as well as violations of state law, against Rutherford County,
Tennessee; Bonita Jo Atwood; J.B. Cox; Adam T. Dodd; Sonya Stephenson; Allison Renfro; and
Catherine Mekis. (Doc. No. 25.) Pending before the Court is Neisen’s Emergency Ex-Parte Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO Motion”) (Doc. No. 26), Emergency Motion for
Immediate Consideration (Doc. No. 32), Emergency Motion to Seal (Doc. No. 33), and Emergency
Motion to Lift Stay and Reopen Case (Doc. No. 35.)
I. EMERGENCY MOTIONS (DOC. NOS. 26, 32, 35)
In Neisen’s Emergency Motion for Immediate Consideration (Doc. No. 32), she requests
that this Court immediately review and rule on the TRO Motion (Doc. No. 26.) Neisen’s
Emergency Motion for Immediate Consideration (Doc. No. 32) is GRANTED insofar as the Court
rules on it herein.
As before, Neisen’s TRO Motion (Doc. No. 26) and Emergency Motion to Lift Stay and
Reopen Case (Doc. No. 35) fail to state or even suggest that the related ongoing state-court
proceedings are resolved, which was required by the Court’s Orders on October 9, 2025 (Doc. No.
13), October 23, 2025 (Doc. No. 19), and October 31, 2025. (Doc. No. 22.). Given that the case
remains stayed and Neisen has not fulfilled the requirements for lifting the stay, the Court DENIES
Neisen’s TRO Motion (Doc. No. 26) and the Emergency Motion to Lift Stay and Reopen Case

(Doc. No. 35) is DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
II. MOTION TO SEAL (DOC. NO. 33)
Neisen has filed an Emergency Motion to Seal (Doc. No. 33.) Local Rule 5.03 requires that
any party requesting that documents or portions of documents be sealed must comply with Section
5.07 of Administrative Order No. 167-1 and Local Rule 7.01. These rules require the movant to
file a motion for leave to file the document(s) under seal and to demonstrate “compelling reasons
to seal the documents and that the sealing is narrowly tailored to those reasons by specifically
analyzing in detail, document by document, the propriety of secrecy, providing factual support and
legal citations.” M.D. Tenn. Local Rule 5.03(a). Although Neisen has filed the required Motion,
she has not made the requisite showing. Her Motion does not provide the required specificity or

the factual and legal support for the request to seal.
“It would be easy—in the interest of judicial economy, one might say—to grant a sealing
motion when no party objects.” Lewis v. Smith, No. 2:20-cv-3461, 2020 WL 6044082, at *3 (S.D.
Ohio Oct. 13, 2020). “But a court should not, indeed cannot, grant a motion to seal simply because
it is easy and convenient to do so.” United States v. Campbell, No. 1:19-cr-25, 2021 WL 1975319,
at *1 (S.D. Ohio May 18, 2021). Instead, a court evaluating a motion to seal must consider the
weighty public interests in judicial transparency and open access to court records. Shane Grp., Inc.
v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016). As the Sixth Circuit recently
explained, “a court’s obligation to explain the basis for sealing court records is independent of
whether anyone objects to it.” Id. at 306. Here, because no Defendants have been served yet, they
have not had the opportunity to object to Neisen’s Motion. However, the Motion will be denied
for other reasons.
Here, Neisen alleges that the “Emergency Ex Parte TRO submissions contain confidential

personal information,” such as “disability-related and ADA accommodation information,
references to trauma, psychological harm, and medical-related safety barriers, and facts concerning
retaliation, coercion, and threats that could increase danger to Plaintiff if publicly disclosed.” (Doc.
No. 33 at PageID# 1.) Neisen argues that the aforementioned personal information is protected
from public dissemination under federal law, that public access would undermine the purpose of
her emergency motions, that redaction would impair the Court’s understanding of the issues
presented, and that her request is narrowly tailored, seeking to seal only certain documents as
opposed to the entire case. (Id. at PageID# 1-2.)
“Courts in this circuit recognize that ‘plaintiffs who place their medical condition at issue
waive any applicable privileges or statutory protections that their medical records would have

otherwise had.’” Doe v. Brooks Automation US LLC, No. 3:24-CV-01284, 2025 WL 936659, at
*4 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 27, 2025) (quoting Chibbaro v. Everett, Case No. 3:20-cv-00663, 2022 WL
20402877, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 23, 2022)). Neisen has placed information such as her disability
and ADA claims at issue here. (Doc. Nos. 25 & 33.)
Additionally, conclusory allegations of injury are insufficient to overcome the presumption
in favor of public access. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 710
F.2d 1165, 1179-80 (6th Cir. 1983) (citing Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880, 884 (2d Cir. 1982)) (“A
naked conclusory statement that [disclosure will injure a producing party] . . . falls woefully short
of the kind of showing which raises even an arguable issue as to whether it may be kept under
seal.”).
Without more, the reasons provided by Neisen in support of her request to seal do not
justify non-disclosure of judicial records. “Only the most compelling reasons can justify non-
disclosure of judicial records.” In re The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., Inc., 723 F.2d 470, 476
(6th Cir. 1983) (citing Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 710 F.2d at 1179-80).
Neisen elected to initiate this lawsuit. Neisen’s request to file this case under seal (Doc.
No. 33) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Again, this case remains stayed and administratively closed for the reasons in the Court’s
October 9, 2025, Memorandum Opinion and Order that requires Neisen to notify the Court in
writing within 14 DAYS after the resolution of her state-court proceedings. Neisen is advised that
frivolous and/or duplicative filings may subject her to sanctions by the Court not limited to
monetary sanctions or the dismissal of this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Woh. Eusbe.
Minh Cisne
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11212233. Public record. Not legal advice.