D.M.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

D.M.,

individually and as parent and natural

:

guardian of minor child on behalf of C. C.,

:

:

Plaintiff,

: Case No. 2:26-cv-00551

: Judge Michael H. Watson

v.

: Magistrate Judge S. Courter M. Shimeall

:

:

CITY OF COLUMBUS, et al.,

:

Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER

In its Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s motion to seal several exhibits,

the Court gave Plaintiff two options for proceeding with Exhibits C, D, E, F, H, K, L, M, N, O, P,

Q, R, and T: (1) file a properly supported supplemental motion to seal for each Exhibit she seeks

to seal in its entirety; or (2) submit proposed redacted versions of the Exhibits to the Court for in

camera inspection. (ECF No. 6.) This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Supplemental

Motion to Seal (ECF No. 10) and the redacted exhibits she submitted for in camera inspection.

Also pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Exhibits U, U1, V, and X (ECF No.

11), Motion to Preserve Evidence (ECF No. 13), and Motion for Leave to File the Second

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14).

For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File the Second Amended

Complaint (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion to Seal (ECF No. 10)

is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Exhibits U, U1, V, and

X (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s Motion to Preserve

Evidence (ECF No. 13) is DENIED without prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND

Pro se Plaintiff, D.M., individually and on behalf of her child, C.C., brings this action

against the City of Columbus, Urban Concern, Inc., Columbus Division of Police (“CPD”)

Detectives Matthew Dunbar and Scott Plate in their individual capacities, City of Columbus

Department of the Inspector General Inspector Larry Ferguson in his individual capacity,

Harambee Christian School (“HCS”), HCS Principal Alex Steinman, and HCS employees Olivia

Steinman and Devon Jackson. Plaintiff alleges various violations of federal and state law arising

from Defendants’ alleged failure to properly investigate and respond to Plaintiff’s reports that her

child was sexually assaulted while enrolled as a student at HCS.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Motion for Leave to File the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14)

For good cause shown, Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). The Clerk is DIRECTED to file Plaintiff’s Second Amended

Complaint (ECF No. 14-1) on the docket.

B. Supplemental Motion to Seal (ECF No. 10)

Plaintiff represents in her Supplemental Motion to Seal that she seeks to file redacted

versions of Exhibits Q and T and that Exhibits C, D, E, F, H, K, L, M, N, O, P and R should be

sealed in their entirety. (ECF No. 10.) The Court notes, however, that Plaintiff submitted redacted

versions of all the Exhibits for in camera inspection.

Motions for leave to file documents under seal must be considered in the light of the strong

presumption in favor of public access to judicial records. Stanley v. Turner Oil & Gas Properties,

Inc., No. 2:16-CV-386, 2017 WL 5068444, at *1 (S.D. Ohio July 24, 2017). The Sixth Circuit has

directed that documents filed with the Court may be placed under seal “[o]nly for the most

compelling reasons.” Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d 299, 305

(6th Cir. 2016) (quoting In re Knoxville News–Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983)).

“A movant’s obligation to provide compelling reasons justifying the seal exists even if the parties

themselves agree the filings should be sealed.” White v. Wilberforce Univ., No. 1:16-CV-1165,

2017 WL 3537233, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 17, 2017) (emphasis in original) (citing Rudd Equip.

Co., Inc. v. John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co., 834 F.3d 589, 595 (6th Cir. 2016)). The proponent

of sealing therefore must “analyze in detail, document by document, the propriety of secrecy,

providing reasons and legal citations.” Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 305 (quoting Baxter Int’l,

Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 548 (7th Cir. 2002)). These reasons and legal citations must

be sufficient for a district court to “set forth specific findings and conclusions which justify

nondisclosure to the public.” Rudd Equip. Co., Inc., 834 F.3d at 594 (quoting Brown & Williamson

Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1176 (6th Cir. 1983)).

Here, as to Exhibits Q and T, Plaintiff represents that she redacted Exhibits Q and T to

remove all personal identifying information and all minor-related content. (ECF No. 10, PAGEID

#: 406.) The Court previously directed Plaintiff to redact only: (1) Plaintiff’s full name (leaving

first and last initials visible); (2) her child’s full name (leaving first and last initials visible); and

(3) the names of other minor children (leaving first and last initials visible). (ECF No. 6.) The

Court finds that Plaintiff’s redactions comply with the Court’s directions and are no broader than

necessary.

As to Exhibits C, D, E, F, H, K, L, M, N, O, P and R, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not

provided sufficient justification to seal these Exhibits in their entirety. Plaintiff primarily argues

that these exhibits discuss Plaintiff’s allegations of C.C.’s sexual assault or contain

communications with various local, state, and federal agencies. But as the Court previously

explained in its Opinion & Order on Plaintiff’s original Motion to Seal:

[T]he fact that some of these Exhibits contain communications with various local,

state, and federal agencies does not, by itself, warrant sealing them in their entirety.

Likewise, the fact that these Exhibits discuss Plaintiff’s allegations of C.C.’s sexual

assault is insufficient, by itself, as a basis to seal. See Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 308

(‘“[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.” (emphasis

added)) (citation omitted). Further, while the Court acknowledges that these

Exhibits address sensitive subjects, at least some of the detail they contain is

substantively indistinguishable from the factual allegations in the complaint, which

was not filed under seal.

(ECF No. 6.) Thus, Plaintiff’s arguments fail for the same reason here.

Plaintiff further contends with respect to Exhibits C, D, E, F, H, K, L, M, N, O, P and R

that “[r]edaction would require removing the vast majority of the document, rendering it

unintelligible” and thus “redaction is not a feasible narrower alternative.” (ECF No. 10.) The

Court has reviewed the redacted versions of Exhibits C, D, E, F, H, K, L, M, N, O, P and R and

finds that Plaintiff’s redactions do not render the documents unintelligible. To the contrary, the

Court finds that Plaintiff’s redactions comply with the Court’s redaction directions and are no

broader than necessary.

Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s proposed redacted version of Exhibit R does not

redact page three of Exhibit R in its entirety. The Court previously explained that page three of

Exhibit R is a letter from Plaintiff’s prior counsel to Plaintiff terminating their representation of

Plaintiff and, therefore, is protected by the attorney-client privilege and may be redacted in its

entirety. (ECF No. 6.) As discussed below, the Court will give Plaintiff one more chance to redact

page three of Exhibit R if she chooses.

C. Motion to Seal Exhibits U, U1, V, and X (ECF No. 11)

Plaintiff moves to seal Exhibits U, U1, V, and X in their entirety, arguing that these Exhibits

“contain sensitive information involving a minor child, confidential investigative communications,

and personally identifying information of non-parties.” (ECF No. 11, PAGEID #: 408.) The Court

has reviewed each Exhibit in camera. With respect to Exhibits U and X, the Court notes that

Plaintiff only submitted redacted versions of these Exhibits.

First, Plaintiff represents that Exhibit U is a screenshot of a voicemail with a CPD

Detective. She contends that Exhibit U includes “identifying information and investigative details

that cannot be redacted without impairing the exhibit.” (ECF No. 11, PAGEID #: 408.) But as

the Court discussed above, the mere the fact that this Exhibit discusses Plaintiff’s allegations of

C.C.’s sexual assault is insufficient, by itself, as a basis to seal. See Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 308.

As to the identifying information, the redacted version of Exhibit U Plaintiff submitted appears to

redact out the personally identifying information. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s redactions do

not render Exhibit U unintelligible and are no broader than necessary.

Second, Exhibit X contains Ohio educator credential records for Harambee Christian

School staff. Plaintiff contends that Exhibit X should be sealed because it includes “names,

credential numbers, expiration dates, and other personally identifying information of non-party

individuals.” (ECF No. 11, PAGEID #: 409.) The Court notes that two of the educator credentials

in Exhibit X are for parties to this case, HCS Principal Alex Steinman and HCS employee Olivia

Steinman. While the remaining educator credentials in Exhibit X are for non-parties to this

lawsuit, Plaintiff has put the credentials of these educators directly at issue in support of her Second

Amended Complaint, which includes, among other claims, a claim for Negligent Hiring,

Retention, Supervision, and Training. (See ECF No. 14-1, PAGEID #: 440–42.) “Therefore, this

is not an instance where the documents at issue appear to have little or no bearing on the issues in

a case. Consequently, the public’s interest in accessing them is not minimal.” Midwest Motor

Supply Co. v. Nietsch, No. 2:22-CV-4049, 2025 WL 2945127, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 17, 2025).

Plaintiff contends that “[r]edaction is not feasible because the sensitive information is intertwined

with the content necessary for the Court’s review.” (ECF No. 11, PAGEID #: 409.) The redacted

version of Exhibit X Plaintiff submitted, however, redacts out the credential numbers for each of

the individual educators. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s redactions to Exhibit X adequately

address the third-party privacy concerns and are no broader than necessary.

Second, Plaintiff submitted Exhibits U1 and V via flashdrive. Accordingly, the Court

construes Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 11) as containing a request to file exhibits manually and,

so construed, GRANTS the request. As to Plaintiff’s request to seal Exhibits U1 and V, Plaintiff

represents that Exhibits U1 is an audio recording of a voicemail that contains “identifying

information” and that Exhibit V is a “recorded intake call between Plaintiff and [Inspector

Ferguson]” that contains “minor-identifying information, investigative details, and sensitive

statements regarding the child’s disclosures.” (Id. at PAGEID #: 408–09.) The Court concludes

that Exhibit U1 and V should be sealed in their entirety because they contain identifying

information of Plaintiff and her minor child. Further, there are no narrower means for pro se

Plaintiff to protect the sensitive information because Exhibits U1 and V are audio recordings and

cannot be redacted.

D. Motion to Preserve Evidence (ECF No. 13)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Preserve Evidence (ECF No. 13) is DENIED without prejudice. At

minimum this Motion is premature as discovery has not begun in this action. Moreover, “a party

to civil litigation has a duty to preserve relevant information, including ESI, when that party ‘has

notice that the evidence is relevant to litigation or . . . should have known that the evidence may

be relevant to future litigation.”’ John B. v. Goetz, 531 F.3d 448, 459 (6th Cir. 2008) (citation

omitted). Nor has Plaintiff alleged any facts suggesting evidence is at any special risk of loss

absent a court order. Id. (“[B]ecause all litigants are obligated to preserve relevant information in

their possession, preservation orders generally must be premised on a demonstration that a real

danger of evidence destruction exists, a lack of any other available remedy, and a showing that the

preservation order is an appropriate exercise of the court's discretion.” (quoting The Sedona

Principles: Best Practices, Recommendations & Principles for Addressing Electronic Document

Production, Second Edition 33)).

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File the Second Amended

Complaint (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Preserve Evidence (ECF No. 13)

is DENIED without prejudice.

Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion to File Exhibits Under Seal (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED

in part and DENIED in part subject to the following directives.

Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file redacted versions of Exhibits Q and T. The Clerk is

DIRECTED to file the redacted versions of Exhibits Q and T on the public docket. The

unredacted versions of Exhibits Q and T SHALL remain under permanent seal.

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to seal Exhibits C, D, E, F, H, K, L, M, N, O, P, and R in their

entirety, her request is again DENIED without prejudice. To the extent she seeks leave to file

the redacted versions of Exhibits C, D, E, F, H, K, L, M, N, O, P and R, her request is GRANTED.

With respect to Exhibit R, Plaintiff may still submit a further redacted version of Exhibit R that

redacts page three of Exhibit R. Alternatively, if Plaintiff still seeks to seal one or more of these

Exhibits in their entirety, she may have one more opportunity to file a supplemental motion to seal

explaining for each Exhibit she seeks to seal why the use of other, narrower, means, such as

redaction, is not feasible to protect the sensitive information therein. Any such motion must be

filed within thirty (30) days of this Order. If Plaintiff does not file a supplemental motion to seal

with respect to these Exhibits by the deadline, the Clerk SHALL file the redacted versions of

Exhibits C, D, E, F, H, K, L, M, N, O, P, and R on the public docket and the unredacted versions

shall remain under permanent seal. In the meantime, these Exhibits shall remain under temporary

seal.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Manual Exhibits U1 and V is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s

Motion to Seal Exhibits U, U1, V, and X (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in

part subject to the following directives.

To the extent Plaintiff requests to seal Exhibits U1 and V in their entirety, her request is

GRANTED. Exhibits U1 and V SHALL remain under PERMANENT SEAL.

To the extent Plaintiff requests to seal Exhibits U and X in their entirety, her request is

DENIED. To the extent she seeks leave to file the redacted versions of Exhibits U and X, her

request is GRANTED. Alternatively, if Plaintiff still seeks to seal Exhibit U and/or X in their

entirety, she may file a supplemental motion to seal explaining for each Exhibit she seeks to seal

why the use of other, narrower means, such as redaction, is not feasible to protect the sensitive

information therein. Any such motion must be filed within thirty (30) days of this Order. If

Plaintiff does not file a supplemental motion to seal with respect to Exhibits U and X by the

deadline, the Clerk SHALL file the redacted versions of Exhibits U and X on the public docket

and Plaintiff SHALL file unredacted versions of Exhibits U and X with the Court. In the

meantime, the Clerk is DIRECTED to file Exhibits U and X under TEMPORARY SEAL.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ S. Courter M. Shimeall

S. COURTER M. SHIMEALL

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE