FOWLER v. AT&T UMBRELLA BENEFIT PLAN NO. 3

Filing 47

ORDER denying 39 Motion to Maintain Document Under Seal 38 SEALED Document (Case Participants - doc). The Plan is DIRECTED to file within 30 days of this date the administrative record with appropriate redaction. Filing No. 38, however, shall remain under seal until further order of the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Doris L. Pryor on 3/27/2018. (CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
SHANNON FOWLER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
AT&T UMBRELLA BENEFIT PLAN
NO. 3,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:17-cv-0962-SEB-DLP

Order on Motion to Maintain the Administrative Record Under Seal
(Filing No. 39)
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Maintain the
Administrative Record Under Seal (Filing No. 39), filed on January 16, 2018.
Plaintiff filed a response in opposition on January 26, 2018 (Filing No. 42), and
Defendant filed a reply on January 31, 2018 (Filing No. 43). The motion was
referred to the undersigned for ruling. For the reasons that follow, the motion is
denied.
Background
The plaintiff Shannon Fowler sued the Defendant AT&T Umbrella Benefit
Plan No. 3 (the Plan), under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA), challenging the termination of her short-term disability benefits under the
Plan. Both parties have moved for summary judgment. (Filing Nos. 34 & 40).
When the Plan filed its summary judgment motion, it filed the administrative

record under seal and moved for an order to maintain the record under seal. (Filing
No. 39). The parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment necessarily rely on the
administrative record, which is 757 pages long and includes Ms. Fowler’s medical
records and reports along with summaries and analyses of those records.
Discussion
The Plan argues that the administrative record should remain under seal
because it is permeated with Ms. Fowler’s social security number, date of birth, and
personal and private medical information. The Plan asserts it would be
burdensome to scour the record to locate and redact the personal identifying
information and that doing so would leave Ms. Fowler’s sensitive medical
information exposed. In addition, the Plan fears that even with diligence, personal
identifying information and sensitive medical information might be missed. If the
motion is denied, the Plan asks that the Court order Ms. Fowler to file the
administrative record because she can waive the protections of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 5.2(h), and she bears the burden of proving her entitlement to the
disability benefits, see Ruttenberg v. U.S. Life Ins. Co., 413 F.3d 652, 663 (7th Cir.
2005).
Ms. Fowler responds that the Plan has not carried its burden under Seventh
Circuit case law and Southern District of Indiana Local Rule 5-11(e) to establish
good cause for maintaining the administrative record under seal. She argues the
record is relevant and material to the resolution of this matter, and therefore it

2

should not be kept from the public. She suggests that a less restrictive alternative
to sealing, namely, redaction would afford adequate protection.
The Plan replies that the prevalence of Ms. Fowler’s medical records in the
record establishes good cause to maintain the entire record under seal. The Plan
contends Ms. Fowler misconstrues the protection that redaction may afford because
it would not protect her medical information in the claim file.
“Documents that affect the disposition of federal litigation are presumptively
open to public view ... unless a statute, rule, or privilege justifies confidentiality.”
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).
Ms. Fowler initiated this action in federal court, placing her personal and
sensitive medical information in the public eye. Basic redaction requirements will
afford some protection to her privacy. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a) (directing that
personal information including last four digits of social security numbers and the
year of a person’s birth be redacted); see also S.D. Ind. L.R. 5-11(c) (documents
redacted under Rule 5.2(a) not to be filed under seal). Ms. Fowler’s opposition to
maintaining the administrative record under seal demonstrates she does not seek
protection of her medical information in that record from the public. Instead, she
wants the public to have access to the claims record because it is relevant and

3

material to the resolution of this matter. She merely seeks redaction of information
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a). Therefore, the Court finds that Ms. Fowler’s privacy
interests do not outweigh the public’s interest in transparent judicial proceedings.
The Court also understands the Plan is asserting an interest in keeping Ms.
Fowler’s medical information under seal. The Plan states:
Protecting the confidentiality of … medical information is a priority for
the Plan in order to promote the privacy interests of all participants and
beneficiaries and their confidence in Plan administration. Whether the
Plan should act to guard the medical information it receives is not
subject to the whims of each participant. Failing to protect one
participant’s privacy may cause others to restrict the records that they
are willing to provide to Plan administrators in the future, interfering
with the proper administration of benefit claims.
(Filing No. 43 at ECF p. 2). The Plan has taken steps to protect Ms. Fowler’s
medical information by filing its motion to maintain the record under seal, and
there is no suggestion it has failed in any way to protect the privacy of its
participants and beneficiaries. The Plan has not shown that its interest in keeping
Ms. Fowler’s medical information private outweighs the public’s interest in
disclosure.
The Plan likens this matter to a social security appeal for which Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 5.2(c) provides limited public remote access due to the prevalence
of sensitive medical information and the volume of filings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2,
advisory committee’s note to 2007 amendment. It is one thing to limit the public’s
remote access to sensitive medical information; it is another thing to preclude public
access to such information.

4

The Plan asserts that it would be burdensome to locate and redact the
personal identifying information in the record, but the mere assertion of an
unspecified burden fails to show that the costs of redaction outweigh the public’s
interest in openness. And, as noted, Ms. Fowler does not oppose the disclosure of
her sensitive medical information in this case.
As the Plan acknowledges, the administrative record is typically filed by the
defendants in these types of cases. The Plan has not shown that with due diligence,
redaction under Rule 5.2 cannot afford adequate protection to Ms. Fowler’s personal
information. Even if, despite diligence, personal identifying information is
inadvertently filed, either party can seek appropriate relief with the Court. Ms.
Fowler’s summary judgment motion relies heavily on the record; thus, she cannot
prevail on her motion unless the record is filed. And Ms. Fowler as the plaintiff
bears the burden of proving her case. The Plan, however, has moved for summary
judgment in its favor, and in doing so, it, too, relies heavily on the record.
Therefore, the Court declines to order that the record be filed by Ms. Fowler.

Conclusion
The Plan has not shown good cause for maintaining the administrative
record under seal. Accordingly, its Motion to Maintain the Administrative Record
Under Seal (Filing No. 39) is DENIED.

5

The Plan is DIRECTED to file within thirty days of this date the
administrative record with appropriate redaction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a).
Filing No. 38, however, shall remain under seal until further order of the Court.
So ORDERED.
Date: 3/27/2018

Distribution:
All ECF-registered counsel of record by email through the court’s ECF system

6