Dee v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

Filing 34

ORDER granting 32 Motion to Seal Deposition of Dr. Steven Lynn. It is hereby Order that the deposition of Dr. Lynn shall be sealed by the Clerk so as to remove it from the public record of the Court and filed as a standalone entry on the docket. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 08/24/2015. (thb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

KEITH DEE,

*

Plaintiff,

*

v.

*

BOARD OF REGENTS

OF THE

CV 114-176

*

UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA

*

d/b/a GEORGIA REGENTS

*

UNIVERSITY,

*

Defendant.

*

ORDER

Presently before the Court

Deposition of

arises

from

Resident

in

University,
to

the

alleged

forced

Anesthesiology

Department

the Medical

at

request,

of

Dr.

Lynn,

because

concerns

"contains

portions

(Doc. 32, M
"There

it

Steven

of

a

Georgia

Defendant

medical

information,"

Plaintiff's

as

Plaintiff's

"Plaintiff's

privileged

This case

Medical
Regents

College of Georgia,

Plaintiff's

treatment,"

abuse.

32.)

resignation

Per

physician,

public

Plaintiff's

(Doc.

deposition

the

exhibits

Steven Lynn Under Seal.

formerly known as

substance

seal

Dr.

is Defendant's Motion to File the

confidential

seeks

includes

medical

to

treating

diagnosis

and

due

and
as

records.

2, 4.)
is

a

common-law presumption that

documents."

2011 WL 6743284,
Warner Commc'n,

at

Inc.,

Webb
*1

v.

(M.D.

435 U.S.

CVS

Caremark

Ga.
589,

Dec.
597

23,

judicial records are

Corp.,
2011)

(1978);

No.

5:11-CV-106,

(citing Nixon v.

Chi.

Tribune Co. v.

Bridgestone/Firestone, 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001)).

"The

operations of the courts and the judicial conduct of judges are
matters
access

of

utmost

to

public

judicial

concern,

proceedings,

and

an

the

common-law

essential

right

component

of

of
our

system of justice, is instrumental in securing the integrity of the
process."

Romero v.

Drummond Co. , Inc. , 480 F.3d 1234,

Cir. 2007)

(quotations omitted).

The right of public access is not absolute,
be

overcome

by

a

inquiry involves
the

other

showing

good

"balancing the

party's

confidential."

of

cause.

interest

in

however,

Id.

asserted right

1245

The

of

keeping

and may

good

access

the

(11th

cause

against

information

Id. at 1246 (quotation omitted).

Whether good cause exists is decided by the nature and
character of the information in question.
In balancing
the public interest in accessing court documents against
a
party's
interest
in
keeping
the
information
confidential,
courts
consider,
among
other
factors,
whether allowing access would impair court functions or
harm legitimate privacy interests,
the degree of and
likelihood of injury if made public, the reliability of
the information, whether there will be an opportunity to
respond to the
information,
whether the
information
concerns public officials or public concerns, and the
availability of a less onerous alternative to sealing the
documents.

Id. (citations and quotations omitted).
The

Court

deposition

has

and

reviewed

accompanying

judgment

motion

exhibits

at

it

issue,

the

exhibits,

supports.
though

The

are

by

no

means

as

critical
2

well

of

Dr.

Lynn's

as

the

summary

deposition

undoubtedly

Defendant's defensive contentions,

that

substance

relevant

testimony
to

some

and
of

contain many personal details

to

the

resolution

of

the

underlying employment-related dispute.
scope
only

of
a

Defendant's
small

motion,

portion

of

Dr.

the

Furthermore,

given the

deposition

represents

Lynn's

full

record

available

for

the

interest

in

public's review.1
Thus,

the

maintaining
outweighs

Court

the

any

of

public

Dr.

that

confidentiality

Defendant's motion.
deposition

finds

interest
(Doc.

his

in open

32.)

Steven

of

Plaintiff's

Lynn

medical

access

and

information
thus

GRANTS

It is hereby ORDERED that the
(Docs.

32-1

& 32-2)

shall

be

SEALED by the Clerk so as to remove it from the public record of
the Court and FILED as a standalone entry on the docket.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this ^ */^ day of
August,

2015.

DAL

HALL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SRN DISTRICT

OF

GEORGIA

1
It also is important to recognize that here, "the party filing the
presumptively confidential discovery material with the court [was] not the
party claiming confidentiality, but that party's adversary[.]"
Chi. Tribune,
263
F.3d
at
1315
n.15.
Although
litigants
"voluntarily
forego[]
confidentiality when one submits material for dispute resolution in a
judicial forum . . . [t] here is no voluntariness, of course, where one's
adversary" makes submission.

Id.
3