LEWIS v. CITY OF ELWOOD, INDIANA et al

Filing 119

ORDER denying Defendants' 111 Motion to Maintain Document Under Seal. See Order. Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Magistrate Judge Doris L. Pryor on 3/31/2018. (SWM) Modified on 4/2/2018 (SWM).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
JOSEPH DALE LEWIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD STIRES of the Elwood Police
Department,
LUCAS TRAYLOR of the Elwood Police
Department,
NATHAN HIATT Madison County Sheriff
Deputy,
SCOTT MELLINGER Madison County
Sheriff,
PHILLIP CALDWELL Police Chief,
Defendants.

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

No. 1:16-cv-03316-TWP-DLP

Order on Defendants’ Motion to Maintain Document Under Seal (Dkt. 111)
This matter comes before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion to Maintain
Document Under Seal (Dkt. 111), which was filed March 9, 2018. Plaintiff has not
filed a response to the motion, and the time for doing so has passed. Defendants
request that the Court maintain under seal Exhibit 13 to their Appendix of
Evidence in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, which are excerpts from
Plaintiff’s medical records. (Dkt. 110). Defendants offer that they seek to have the
exhibit maintained under seal because it contains Plaintiff’s medical information.
“Documents that affect the disposition of federal litigation are presumptively
open to public view.” In re Specht, 622 F.3d 697, 701 (7th Cir. 2010). The public
interest in transparent judicial proceedings “can be overridden only if the [litigants’

property and privacy] interests predominate in a particular case, that is, only if
there is good cause for sealing a part or the whole of the record in that case.”
Citizens First Nat’l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 945 (7th
Cir. 1999).
Defendants submitted Exhibit 13 as evidence in support of their motion for
summary judgment, assert facts supported by the exhibit, and cite the exhibit.
(Dkt. 112 at ECF pp. 7–8). By doing so, they have taken the position that the
exhibit affects the disposition of this matter, which is a fair position to take. In
addition, Defendants have redacted information protected under Fed. R. Civ. P.
5.2(a) and the exhibit is limited to a potentially relevant excerpt of Plaintiff’s
medical records. Therefore, the presumption of public access has not been rebutted
and the motion to maintain the exhibit under seal should be denied.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Defendants Richard Stires, Lucas Traylor and Phillip Caldwell’s
Motion to Maintain Document Under Seal (Dkt. 111) is denied.
So Ordered.

Date: 3/31/2018

2

Distribution:
JOSEPH DALE LEWIS
2424 Fairfield Avenue
Fort Wayne, IN 46807
Matthew L. Hinkle
COOTS HENKE & WHEELER
[e-mail]
Kyle A. Jones
NORRIS CHOPLIN & SCHROEDER LLP
[e-mail]
John Vincent Maurovich
COOTS, HENKE & WHEELER
[e-mail]

3