Malone v. Hakes

Filing 13

OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Seal Exhibits or for Protective Order (DE 4). The Court ORDERS defendant to FILE as one docket entry, with a link to the Complaint, unredacted Exhibits A, B, D, F, I, and L and partially redacted Exhibits C and J as set forth in the Opinion and Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 12/18/17. (ksp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
HEATHER MALONE,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGE THOMAS HAKES, in his individual
capacity,
Defendant.

)
)
)
) Cause No.: 1:17-CV-505-WCL-PRC
)
)
)
)

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Seal Exhibits or for Protective
Order [DE 4], filed by Defendant Judge Thomas Hakes on December 11, 2017.
Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 5-3 provides that “[n]o document will be maintained
under seal in the absence of an authorizing statute, Court rule, or Court order.” N.D. Ind. L.R. 5-3(a).
The general presumption is that judicial records are public, but this can be overridden when “the
property and privacy interests of the litigants . . . predominate in the particular case.” Citizens First
Nat’l Bank v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 945 (7th Cir. 1999). The bar is quite high: “[a]ny
step that withdraws an element of the judicial process from public view makes the ensuing decision
look more like fiat and requires rigorous justification” by the Court. Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell,
439 F.3d 346, 348 (7th Cir. 2006). A motion to file documents under seal must justify the claim of
secrecy, analyzing the applicable legal criteria. See Citizens First, 178 F.3d at 945. Further, the
decision of whether good cause exists to file a document under seal rests solely with the Court. Id.
(“The determination of good cause cannot be elided by allowing the parties to seal whatever they
want, for then the interest in publicity will go unprotected unless the media are interested in the case
and move to unseal.”).

Defendant asks the Court to seal Exhibits A, B, C, D, F, I, and L to the Complaint in their
entirety on the basis that the exhibits contain “confidential information.” (ECF 4, p. 1). However,
Defendant does not explain what information within each exhibit is confidential or how the
information is confidential within the standard set forth by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Rather, Defendant asserts generally that the exhibits are “communications relating to court business
between Judge Hakes and Ms. Malone, an employee of the Huntington Superior Courts.” (ECF 4,
p. 2). Defendant has also redacted specific portions of several exhibits on the basis that they contain
“confidential” information. From the notice of removal and from the state court file stamp on the
unredacted exhibits filed under seal in this court, it appears that these exhibits were not redacted
when originally filed by Plaintiff and that Defendant redacted the exhibits before removing the case
to this Court.
The Court’s review of unredacted Exhibits A, B, C, D, F, I, J, and L, as set forth below,
shows that the exhibits are almost entirely personal messages related to the allegations of the
Complaint and that there is no basis to seal any portion of the exhibits with two exceptions.
Exhibit A is a personal message chain as well as a few email messages between Defendant
and Plaintiff primarily on personal topics and not related to court business. The few references to
court business are vague and non-case specific. Having reviewed the redactions, there is no basis
to seal any part of Exhibit A.
Exhibit B is a personal email from Defendant to Plaintiff related to the subject matter of the
Complaint. It contains no court business. There is no basis to seal Exhibit B.
Exhibit C is a personal email from Defendant to Plaintiff with approximately half of the text
redacted. The unredacted portion of the text is related to the subject matter of the Complaint and

2

contains no court business. However, having reviewed the redactions, the Court finds that there is
a basis to maintain under seal a portion of the redacted material as confidential employment
information. The Court orders Defendant to modify the redactions to Exhibit C to maintain all the
redactions except for the following three sentences for which the redactions shall be removed: “Am
I comfortable in the courthouse. . . not by a long shot. When you closed the chamber door yesterday,
it was the first time I allowed that in 2 months.”; “When I said I am probably going to quit, I meant
it . . . . Nell says no, you are not a quitter.”; and “You may be better off over in Superior. . . I don’t
know how long I will last or what the next two years will bring.”
Exhibit D is a personal message chain between Defendant and Plaintiff primarily on personal
topics and not related to court business. The only reference to court business is the years of
Plaintiff’s employment history, which is not confidential. Having reviewed the redactions, there is
no basis to seal any portion of Exhibit D.
Exhibit F is a personal email from Defendant to Plaintiff that is not related to court business.
There is no basis to seal Exhibit F.
Exhibit I is a personal email chain between Defendant and Plaintiff. The references to
Plaintiff’s work is not sensitive. Having reviewed the redactions, there is no basis to seal any portion
of Exhibit I.
Exhibit J contains the names and email addresses of individuals in a work-related context.
These individuals are not involved in this litigation, and their names and email addresses should
remain redacted. However, there is no basis for redacting the date, name, and location of
professional training sessions. Accordingly, the Court orders Defendant to modify the redactions to
Exhibit J to maintain only the redaction of the email addresses in the “To” and “Cc” lines on page

3

1 and the names other than Heather’s on pages 1 and 2 and to remove the redaction of the date,
name, and location of the training sessions.
Exhibit L is a personal email from Defendant to Plaintiff. Having reviewed the redactions,
there is no basis to redact any portion of Exhibit L.
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part
Defendant’s Motion to Seal Exhibits or for Protective Order [DE 4]. The Court ORDERS Defendant
to FILE as one docket entry, with a link to the Complaint, unredacted Exhibits A, B, D, F, I, and
L and partially redacted Exhibits C and J as set forth above.
SO ORDERED this 18th day of December, 2017.

s/ Paul R. Cherry
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4