Adigun v. Express Scripts, Inc.
ORDER granting Defendant's 72 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 8/7/2017. (csr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
LORETTA C. ADIGUN,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:16-cv-39
EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.,
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Under Seal.
(Doc. 72.) Defendant requests that it be granted leave of Court to file under seal Exhibits 34 and
37 from Plaintiff’s deposition, as well as certain documents the Social Security Administration
(“SSA”) produced in response to Defendant’s subpoena request. For the reasons and in the
manner set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion.
The right of access to judicial records pursuant to common law is well-established. See
Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); see also Brown v. Advantage
Eng’g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992). This right extends to the inspection and the
copying of court records and documents. See Nixon, 435 U.S. at 597. The right to access,
however, is not absolute. See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk Cty., 457
U.S. 596, 598 (1982). When deciding whether to grant a party’s motion to seal, the court is
required to balance the historical presumption of access against any significant interests raised by
the party seeking to file under seal. See Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263
F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001); Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796, 803 (11th Cir. 1983).
In balancing the interests, courts consider, among other things:
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.
Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2005). Additionally, “[a]
party’s privacy or proprietary interest in information sometimes overcomes the interest of the
public in accessing the information.” Id. (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. at
598). This Court’s Local Rule 79.7 sets forth procedures for a party to request that documents be
filed under seal.
Defendant has shown good cause for requesting leave to file under seal certain
documents in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. Specifically, Defendant cites this
Court’s Protective Order entered after the parties filed a Joint Motion for Protective Order and
note their documents contain sensitive information, as set forth by this Court’s Order. (Doc. 72,
p. 3.) Further, Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to Defendant’s Motion. 1 Accordingly, the
Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. The Court DIRECTS the
Clerk of Court to FILE UNDER SEAL the following documents relating to Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment: 1) the unredacted version of Exhibit 34 from Plaintiff’s deposition;
2) the unredacted version of Exhibit 37 from Plaintiff’s deposition; and 3) excerpts from the
documents Defendant received from the SSA in response to Defendant’s subpoena requests.
In fairness to Plaintiff, Defendant’s Motion was filed on August 2, 2017, and her time for response has
not yet elapsed. However, Defendant’s counsel states he attempted to confer with Plaintiff prior to the
filing of this Motion, and he had not received a response from Plaintiff as of the filing of this Motion.
(Doc. 72, p. 3.) Moreover, the filing under seal of certain documents Defendant requests is for the
protection of Plaintiff’s privacy, as these documents contain Plaintiff’s medical records and other personal
These documents shall remain under seal until further Order of the Court.
SO ORDERED, this 7th day of August, 2017.
R. STAN BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?