Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:23-cv-3010

Judge Michael H. Watson

Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

UNITED HEALTHCARE

SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

OPINION & ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Seal. (Doc. 80). Defendant asks to file under

seal portions of six non-party witness deposition transcripts. (Id.). Plaintiff consents to the request.

For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.

When considering a motion to seal, 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. (citation omitted). “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 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., 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., 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.

Defendant seeks to keep under seal portions of deposition transcripts that reveal sensitive

or private information of non-party witnesses. Generally, the proposed redactions shield the

witnesses’ home address, family history, or medical history. (Doc. 80). The Court takes seriously

the privacy interests of third parties. Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 308 (“[T]he privacy interests

of innocent third parties should weigh heavily in a court’s balancing equation.” (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted)). This is particularly true with regards to their private health

information and personal information. See, e.g., Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. 171.54 Acres

of Land, No. 2:17-CV-70, 2021 WL 4260422, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 20, 2021) (granting a motion

for leave to seal a non-party’s private health and medical information); Ewalt v. Gatehouse Media

Ohio Holding II, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-4262, 2023 WL 8434728, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 9, 2023)

(permitting third parties’ names, email addresses, and phone numbers to be redacted). So too here

the Court finds a compelling interest in sealing this information.

And the public’s interest in this information does not override the compelling interest in

keeping it sealed. As Defendant says, the public does not need to know this information to

understand the basis for Plaintiff’s claims, the parties’ summary judgment briefing, or the Court’s

eventual summary judgment ruling. The unsealed portions of the docket are enough. Finally, the

redactions are limited in nature and narrowly tailored to protect the compelling interests at stake.

For these reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Seal is GRANTED (Doc. 80). Defendant is

ORDERED to file unredacted versions of the depositions at issue under seal within seven (7)

days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: May 19, 2026 /s/Kimberly A. Jolson

KIMBERLY A. JOLSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE