MILLER v. ELI LILLY & COMPANY

Filing 60

ORDER denying Pltf's 57 Motion to Seal (see Order for details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 4/26/2012. (SWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

AJ MILLER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ELI LILLY & COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:10-cv-1665-JMS-TAB

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL
While a popular phrase proclaims, “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas,” courts are
not like Las Vegas. What transpires in court typically occurs in the public eye for all to see.
In the Seventh Circuit, it is well-established that “[w]hat happens in federal courts is
presumptively open to public scrutiny.” Hicklin Eng’g v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 348 (7th Cir.
2006); see also Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1074 (7th Cir. 2009) (explaining that good
cause must be shown to shield documents from the public). Nevertheless, Plaintiff has filed a
motion asking the Court to seal its response to summary judgment and numerous exhibits.
[Docket No. 57.] Plaintiff’s motion to seal is denied.
There is plenty of information in the response brief and exhibits that is not worthy of
being sealed, such as an index of exhibits, generic objections to interrogatories, employee
opinions about management, and information revealing employees’ pay grades. See United States
v. Foster, 564 F.3d 852, 855 (7th Cir. 2009) (addressing problems related to a motion to have
documents filed under seal, and holding that an affidavit could not be maintained under seal
simply because it might cause potential embarrassment and affect counsel’s professional
reputation by disclosing personal matters). Plaintiff simply calls documents confidential, but has

not explained or identified specific information that warrants sealing them. See Baxter Intern.,
Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002) (denying a renewed, joint motion to place
documents under seal, and stressing that parties must offer legal justification for placing
documents under seal); Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., No: 1:96-cv-1718DFH-TAB, 2007 WL 141923, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 16, 2007) (noting defendants’ motion to seal
put the Court “in the all-too-familiar position of reviewing overbroad and unsupported requests
to file documents under seal.”).
Perhaps there is confidential information contained somewhere in the 411 pages that
constitute Plaintiff’s response and exhibits, but the Court will not scour the record in search of
Plaintiff’s confidential information. See United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir.
1991) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”). Based on the
presumption that documents should not be filed under seal and Plaintiff’s failure to articulate a
reason that over 400 pages should be filed under seal, Plaintiff’s motion to seal [Docket No. 57]
is denied.

Dated: 04/26/2012
_______________________________
Tim A. Baker
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana

Copies to:
Kevin W. Betz
BETZ & BLEVINS
[e-mail]
Sandra L. Blevins
BETZ & ASSOCIATES
[e-mail]
Ellen E. Boshkoff
FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP - Indianapolis
[e-mail]
Johane J. Domersant
BAKER & DANIELS, LLP
[e-mail]
Benjamin C. Ellis
BETZ & BLEVINS
[e-mail]
Sharon Yvette Eubanks
SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER LLP
[e-mail]
Jamenda A. McCoy
FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP - Chicago
[e-mail]
Matthew Louis Schmid
SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP
[e-mail]
Kristen L. Walsh
SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP
[e-mail]