Monroe et al v. Rauner et al

Filing 142

ORDER GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 125 Motion to Seal: The motion is GRANTED as to Exhibits 1-3 of the Motion to Certify Class. The motion is DENIED as to Exhibits 11-15 of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Clerk of Court is DIRECT ED to replace Exhibits 11-15 to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 123) with those filed under seal at Doc. 126 (omitting the first page of each sealed exhibit). The exhibits to the Motion to Certify Class (Doc. 124) shall remain sealed at Doc. 127. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 6/7/2019. (jmp2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JANIAH MONROE,
MARILYN MELENDEZ,
EBONY STAMPS,
LYDIA HELENA VISION,
SORA KUYKENDALL, and
SASHA REED,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JOHN BALDWIN, STEVE MEEKS, and
MELVIN HINTON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 18-CV-156-NJR-MAB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Janiah Monroe, Marilyn Melendez, Ebony Stamps, Lydia Helena Vision, Sora
Kuykendall, and Sasha Reed are inmates of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”) (Doc. 1). They bring this putative class action against John Baldwin, Steve
Meeks, and Melvin Hinton for inadequate medical treatment of gender dysphoria, in
violation of the Eighth Amendment (Id.). Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (Doc. 123) and a Motion to Certify Class (Doc. 124), and move the Court to
permit them to file certain exhibits to those motions under seal. For the following reasons,
the Motion to Seal (Doc. 125) is granted in part and denied in part.
DISCUSSION
“The general rule is that the record of a judicial proceeding is public.” Jessup v.
Page 1 of 4

Luther, 277 F.3d 926, 927 (7th Cir. 2002). “[T]he public at large pays for the courts and
therefore has an interest in what goes on at all stages of a judicial proceeding.” Citizens
First Nat’l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 945 (7th Cir. 1999). Thus,
there is a presumption that documents should be open to public view. E.G., Nixon v.
Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S. 598, 597 (1978). But this presumption can be rebutted if the
party moving to conceal documents demonstrates the existence of “compelling reasons
of personal privacy.” Goesel v. Boley Intern. (H.K.) Ltd., 738 F.3d 831, 833 (7th Cir. 2013).
Here, Plaintiffs seek leave to file Exhibits 1-3 of the class certification motion
(“Exhibits 1-3”) and Exhibits 11-15 of the preliminary injunction motion (“Exhibits 1115”) under seal. Exhibits 1-3 are lists of all transgender inmates in IDOC in May, June,
and July 2018. The lists include the inmates’ names, IDOC numbers, dates of birth, races,
confirmation statuses, the facilities where they were incarcerated, their housing
assignments, whether they were in restrictive housing, whether they were receiving
hormones and, if so, the date on which hormone therapy began. The bulk of this
information personally identifies parties and non-parties, pertains to individuals’
medical histories, and/or is not central to Plaintiffs’ claims. See Gordon v. Countryside
Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, No. 11 C 2433, 2012 WL 2905607, at *2 (N.D. Ill. July
16, 2012) (medical information raises significant privacy concerns, especially when it
pertains to non-parties); Goesel, 738 F.3d at 832 (“[T]he presumption of public access
applies only to the materials that formed the basis of the parties’ dispute and the district
court’s resolution”). Because the public has no real interest in the sensitive information

Page 2 of 4

contained in these documents, and the documents raise compelling privacy concerns, the
Motion to Seal is granted as to Exhibits 1-3.
Exhibits 11-15 contain reports from the IDOC Gender Identification Placement
Committee and include medical summaries related to Plaintiffs Monroe, Kuykendall,
Reed, and Melendez. Although the documents contain personal information, Plaintiffs
already divulged virtually all of the sensitive details from the exhibits when they filed
the Complaint. For example, the Complaint states that Monroe was diagnosed with
gender dysphoria, attempted self-castration and suicide, and is undergoing hormone
treatment (Doc. 1, pp. 4-5); that Kuykendall attempted self-castration by tying her genitals
with a string (Id. at pp. 10-11); that Reed has untreated gender dysphoria and has tried to
harm herself (Id. at pp. 11-12); and that Melendez suffers from depression and anxiety,
and is not receiving adequate medical care for her gender dysphoria (Id. at pp. 5-6). The
Motion to Seal does not specify the remaining information in Exhibits 11-15 that should
be sealed, and Plaintiffs’ broad assertions of privacy are insufficient to justify
concealment. Baxter Intern., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 297 F.3d 544, 548 (7th Cir. 2002).
When a plaintiff initiates litigation, she “must accept the openness that goes with
subsidized dispute resolution by public (and publicly accountable) officials. Judicial
proceedings are public rather than private property.” Union Oil Co. of Calif. v. Leavell, 220
F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2000). Because Plaintiffs have not demonstrated good cause for
contravening these principles, the Motion to Seal is denied as to Exhibits 11-15.

Page 3 of 4

CONCLUSION
In sum, the Motion to Seal (Doc. 125) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
The motion is GRANTED as to Exhibits 1-3 of the Motion to Certify Class. The motion is
DENIED as to Exhibits 11-15 of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Clerk of Court
is DIRECTED to replace Exhibits 11-15 to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(Doc. 123) with those filed under seal at Doc. 126 (omitting the first page of each sealed
exhibit). The exhibits to the Motion to Certify Class (Doc. 124) shall remain sealed at
Doc. 127).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 7, 2019
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge

Page 4 of 4