Belbachir v. County of McHenry et al

Filing 436

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 1/4/2012: Plaintiff's motion to unseal documents 382 is granted, in part. The court adopts the recommendations contained in the report prepared by the United States. The parties a re ordered to re-file appropriate documents electronically in the court file in conformity with this order. Appropriately redacted versions of all previously sealed motions, responses, and associated memoranda or exhibits are to be re-filed by Januar y 18, 2012. Parties are instructed to file items as an amended document on the CM/ECF system and link them back to the appropriate docket entry. Replies remain due February 3, 2012 and should be filed in conformity with this order and the government& #039;s report. The parties should not send courtesy copies to the court. The briefing schedule and timeline for the motions will not be affected by this order. All future filings should comply with the government's report until further order of the court. Parties have 14 days from service, as calculated under Rule 6, to file objections with Judge Reinhard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Any objection not made within the 14 day time frame may be waived for the purposes of appeal. Objections need not be presented as stated in L.R.5.3.[For further details see order.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff. (jat, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Philip G. Reinhard

CASE NUMBER

06 C 01392

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

P. Michael Mahoney

DATE

1/4/2012

Belbachir vs. County of McHenry, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

Plaintiff’s motion to unseal documents [382] is granted, in part. The court adopts the recommendations
contained in the report prepared by the United States. The parties are ordered to re-file appropriate
documents electronically in the court file in conformity with this order. Appropriately redacted versions of
all previously sealed motions, responses, and associated memoranda or exhibits are to be re-filed by January
18, 2012. Parties are instructed to file items as an amended document on the CM/ECF system and link them
back to the appropriate docket entry. Replies remain due February 3, 2012 and should be filed in conformity
with this order and the government’s report. The parties should not send courtesy copies to the court. The
briefing schedule and timeline for the motions will not be affected by this order. All future filings should
comply with the government’s report until further order of the court. Parties have 14 days from service, as
calculated under Rule 6, to file objections with Judge Reinhard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Any objection
not made within the 14 day time frame may be waived for the purposes of appeal. Objections need not be
presented as stated in L.R.5.3.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Notices mailed by Judicial staff.
*Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

STATEMENT
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion to unseal certain documents in the court files of
the two cases filed by Plaintiff regarding the same underlying facts. Case number 06 C 1392 (“2006 case”)
and case number 08 C 50193 (“2008 case”) were consolidated for the purposes of discovery on June 18,
2009. Distilled, Plaintiff’s complaints allege that the Defendants’ negligence proximately caused the death of
Hassiba Belbachir, a foreign national of Algerian descent who had been denied re-entry into the United
States by immigration officials and detained at the McHenry County Jail.
On August 15, 2011, the McHenry County Defendants and the Centegra Health Care Defendants each
filed motions for summary judgment in the 2006 case. On August 16, 2011, the Centegra Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss under Rule 12. On August 18, 2011, the United States Defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment in the 2008 case. Because the allegations and factual materials were intertwined among
the Defendants, the parties were given leave to cross-reference each other’s Rule 56.1 statements of fact. All
or parts of each motion for summary judgment or motion to dismiss, along with accompanying exhibits and
memoranda, were filed under seal because the United States indicated that certain materials were subject to
protective orders entered in these cases. The McHenry County and Centegra Defendants, seeking to avoid
06C01392 Belbachir vs. County of McHenry, et al.

Page 1 of 3

contravention of the United States’ opinion that certain materials should remain under seal, similarly filed
their motions under seal.
On August 19, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to unseal all of the documents related to Defendants’
various motions. Plaintiff correctly argued that there is a “presumption of public access to discovery
materials” filed in the court file, irrespective of the protective order governing discovery among the parties.
Citizens First Nat’l Bank v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 946 (7th Cir. 1999). At a hearing before the
court on August 24, 2011, the court emphasized that Seventh Circuit case law has established specific
guidelines as to the types of materials that may be filed under seal. See, e.g., Baxter International, Inc. v.
Abbott Laboratories, 297 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2002); Union Oil Co. of California v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562 (7th
Cir. 2000). Counsel for Defendants acknowledged that certain materials had been filed under seal in an
abundance of caution out of respect for purported security interests of the United States. Pursuant to Local
Rule 37.2 and by agreement of the parties, the court allowed the United States time to compile a report of all
materials it believed should remain under seal pursuant to Seventh Circuit case law. On November 9, 2011,
after the United States completed its report, the court allowed the other parties in the cases to submit
comments within 14 days.
The 29-page report from the United States acknowledges that the majority of the materials associated
with the motions for summary judgment should not remain under seal. In some instances the United States
instead suggests filing unsealed documents containing redactions, for example, to conceal the names of
federal law enforcement personnel or detainee safety information. Plaintiff’s comment on the report
essentially objects to all of the suggested redactions and to any portions of any documents or deposition
transcripts being left out of the public record. Plaintiff argues that certain personnel have already been
identified through other documents in the court record, and that Defendants have cited to no authority that
justifies any other redactions or limitations on public filings.
The court has reviewed all of the materials and comments submitted by the parties, and finds that the
report of the United States is appropriate. These cases encompass a tragic and highly sensitive situation. On
one hand, the parties have to navigate the facts and testimony surrounding the events leading to Ms.
Belbachir allegedly taking her own life. On the other hand, there are valid security interests put forward by
the United States in protecting certain law enforcement and national security information.
The court also finds there to be safety concerns related to certain publicity this case has received. The
top result for a search of Ms. Belbachir’s name using a popular search engine reveals a story insinuating that
she was murdered by government employees. Junaid M. Afeef, The detention & murder of Hassiba
Belbachir, June 13, 2005, www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/2223 (last visited Jan. 4, 2012). Numerous articles,
discussions, and forums have arisen with regard to this case over the course of more than six years. The
accusatory theories presented in public forums heightens the potential for safety or privacy concerns with
regard to individuals who were allegedly involved in this incident.
The proposed redactions and limitations in the government’s report appear to be relatively limited and
would result in very few documents remaining under seal. The Seventh Circuit placed on emphasis on
keeping open to public view those documents that “affect the disposition of federal litigation.” In re Specth,
622 F.3d at 701. Those materials that would remain hidden from public view include the names of specific
individuals and documents revealing certain details about internal operating procedures or reviews of
government immigration processes. Such documents are unlikely to affect the disposition of this case. In
weighing the particular security and privacy interests against the relatively limited redactions, the court finds
the government’s report appropriate.

06C01392 Belbachir vs. County of McHenry, et al.

Page 2 of 3

The parties are ordered to re-file appropriate documents electronically in the court file in conformity
with this order. Appropriately redacted versions of all previously sealed motions, responses, and associated
memoranda or exhibits are to be re-filed by January 18, 2012. Replies remain due February 3, 2012 and
should be filed in conformity with this order and the government’s report. The parties should not send
courtesy copies to the court. The briefing schedule and timeline for the motions will not be affected by this
order. All future filings should comply with the government’s report until further order of the court. Parties
have 14 days from service, as calculated under Rule 6, to file objections with Judge Reinhard pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Any objection not made within the 14 day time frame may be waived for the purposes of
appeal. Objections need not be presented as stated in L.R.5.3.

Courtroom Deputy
Initials:

06C01392 Belbachir vs. County of McHenry, et al.

BTJ

Page 3 of 3