Murfin v. St. Mary's Good Samaritan, Inc.

Filing 14

ORDER STRIKING 13 Sealed Response filed by St. Mary's Good Samaritan, Inc. and 12 Sealed Response filed by St. Mary's Good Samaritan, Inc. Defendants shall file either (1) undredacted, unsealed versions of the documents, or (2) file a redacted version of the documents by 5:00 pm on 10/26/12. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams on 10/25/12. (amv)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MARK MURFIN, M.D.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ST. MARY’S HOSPITAL,1
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12–cv–1077–WDS–SCW

ORDER
WILLIAMS, Magistrate Judge:
After two extensions of time, Defendant St. Mary's Hospital has filed its answer
(Doc. 12) and its Response to the plaintiff's petition for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 13). Without
asking the Court's leave to do so, Defendant filed both documents under seal.
The parties to a lawsuit are not the only people who have a legitimate interest in the record
of a legal proceeding. Citizens First Nat'l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d
943, 944 (7th Cir. 1999). Sealing any part of the record of a case requires a court determination that
good cause to do so exists. Id. The public’s strong interest in the publicity of judicial proceedings
can only be trumped when the information sought to be sealed meets “the definition of trade secret
or other categories of bona fide long-term confidentiality.” Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1075
(7th Cir. 2009) (quoting Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002)).
Whether the parties consent to sealing the information is beside the point: dispositive documents in
any litigation enter the public record notwithstanding any earlier agreement. Baxter, 297 F.3d at
546 (citing Grove Fresh Distributors, Inc. v. Everfresh Juice Co., 24 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 1994)).
1 It appears from the recent submissions that the Defendant’s name on the docket is incorrect.
The Clerk is
DIRECTED to edit the docket and name “St. Mary’s Hospital” rather than “St. Mary’s Good Samaritan, Inc.” as the
Defendant.

See id. (“How else are observers to know what the suit is about or assess the judges’
disposition of it? Not only the legislature but also students of the judicial system are
entitled to know what the heavy financial subsidy of litigation is producing.”).
The undersigned therefore DIRECTS the Clerk to STRIKE both Defendant’s sealed
Answer (Doc. 12) and its “Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint for Preliminary Injunction” (Doc. 13)
from the docket.

See Baxter, 297 F.3d at 547 (“[M]any litigants would like to keep

confidential the salary they make, the injuries they suffered, or the price they agreed to pay
under a contract, but when these things are vital to claims made in litigation they must be
revealed.”).
By 5:00 p.m. tomorrow (10/26/2012), Defendants SHALL either (1) file unredacted,
unsealed versions of the documents; or (2) file a redacted version of the documents (or one
document, if Defendant so chooses), and file a concomitant motion to file an unredacted version (or
versions) under seal. Should Defendant choose the latter course, an unredacted version of its filings
should be contemporaneously submitted to the Court’s proposed documents inbox—
[e-mail]—to enable the Court to make an individualized determination as to
whether the information Defendant wishes to keep from public view is properly sealable.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: 10/25/2012

/s/ Stephen C. Williams
STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS
United States Magistrate Judge