McNamee v. Family Focus Inc

Filing 44

OPINION AND ORDER granting 37 Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal and ORDERS that the following documents REMAIN UNDER SEAL: Documents Responsive to Request No. 2 Pay-Check Detail 39 , Documents Responsiveto Request No. 2 Pay Rates 40 , Documents Responsive to Request No. 3 41 , Documents Responsive to Request No. 4 41 , and Documents Responsive to Request No. 9 43 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 1/4/2016. (cc: McNamee) (rmn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
COREY MCNAMEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
FAMILY FOCUS, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO.: 2:14-CV-260-JTM-PRC

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal [DE
37], filed on December 3, 2015, by Defendant Family Focus, Inc. Plaintiff Corey McNamee has not
filed a response to this motion, and the time to do so has passed.
Defendant asks the Court’s leave to file under seal discovery responses. The discovery
responses contain payroll information for current and former employees of Defendant, and
Defendant has identified this information as confidential pursuant to the protective order issued in
this case.
Ordinarily, this discovery would be exchanged solely between the parties, and “[s]ecrecy is
fine at the discovery stage, before the material enters the judicial record.” See Baxter Int’l, Inc. v.
Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002) (citing Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20
(1984)). However, because Plaintiff is pro se, all discovery materials in this case must be filed on
the docket. See N.D. Ind. L.R. 26-2. Because these documents contain confidential information as
defined in the protective order and because these documents are on the docket solely as discovery
and not as evidence to be brought to the Court’s attention, the Court finds that secrecy is still
acceptable. However, any party that uses these documents as evidence in this case cannot rely on
this order as authorization to file the documents under seal for that purpose.

Finding the matter well taken, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion for Leave to File
Documents Under Seal [DE 37] and ORDERS that the following documents REMAIN UNDER
SEAL: Documents Responsive to Request No. 2 Pay-Check Detail [DE 39], Documents Responsive
to Request No. 2 Pay Rates [DE 40], Documents Responsive to Request No. 3 [DE 41], Documents
Responsive to Request No. 4 [DE 41], and Documents Responsive to Request No. 9 [DE 43].
SO ORDERED this 4th day of January, 2016.
s/ Paul R. Cherry
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
cc:

Corey McNamee, pro se

2