Craig v. Bolner et al

Filing 13

RULING denying 5 Motion to Seal Her Lawsuit. The Court further finds that Plaintiff's Motion requesting that all Court proceedings (e.g., hearings) be closed to the public is premature considering there have been no hearings scheduled to date in this matter. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion shall be denied without prejudice, and she may re-urge her request should a hearing be scheduled before the Court in the future. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 1/20/2016. (JDL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CANDICE CRAIG

CIVIL ACTION NO.

VERSUS
15-815-SDD-EWD
ANNE BOLNER, ET AL.

RULING
On December 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed her Pro Se Complaint, alleging that the
Defendants violated her civil rights arising out of her involuntary hospitalization at Our
Lady of the Lake Regional Medication Center in November and December of 2014.
Plaintiff now requests that the Court exercise its discretion and seal her lawsuit and all
court proceedings for “compelling privacy concerns.”1 Plaintiff is concerned about the
disclosure of certain information to the public, including her health information, her name,
her prior place of detention, and details regarding her detention.
“Courts have recognized that the public has a common law right to inspect and
copy judicial records.”2 “Public access serves important interests, such as ‘to promote
trustworthiness of the judicial process, to curb judicial abuses, and to provide the public
with a more complete understanding of the judicial system.”3 Therefore, “requests to seal

1

Rec. Doc. 5, p. 1.
S.E.C. v. Van Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d 845, 848 (5th Cir. 1993)(citing Nixon v. Warner Communications
Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 1312, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978); Belo Broadcasting Corp. v. Clark,
654 F.2d 423, 429 (5th Cir. 1981))(hereinafter Van Waeyenberghe).
3
Bahwell v. Stanley-Bostitch, Inc., 2002 WL 1298777, *1 (E.D.La. June 10, 2002).
2

1

the court’s record are not lightly granted or considered.”4 Rather, “the district court’s
discretion to seal the record of judicial proceedings is to be exercised charily.”5 “In
exercising its discretion to seal judicial records, the court must balance the public’s
common law right of access against the interests favoring nondisclosure.”6 “Although
countervailing interests may outweigh the right of public access, the party seeking to
overcome the presumption of access bears the burden of showing that the interest in
secrecy outweighs the presumption.”7
The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to satisfy her burden of showing that the
interest in secrecy outweighs the presumption of public access.

Plaintiff has simply

offered conclusory statements without any relevant justification as to why the public
should be barred from accessing the record in this case.8 While it is most certainly true
that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) generally
provides for the confidentiality of medical records, no such medical records have been
filed into the record.9 The allegations in the Plaintiff’s Complaints referencing medical
facilities, dates and nature of “detention,” and the identities of practitioners, does not
amount to protected health care information that would trigger the need for secrecy and
justify sealing this lawsuit in its entirety. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Her
Lawsuit10 shall be denied.

4

Cruz v. City of Hammond, 2015 WL 1525758, *1 (E.D.La. April 2, 2015)(emphasis original).
Van Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d at 848.
6
Id.
7
Ryon v. Burkhalter, 2010 WL 2667362, *1 (M.D.La. June 25, 2010)(quoting Jaufre v. Taylor, 351
F.Supp.2d 514 (E.D.La. 2005)(citing Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Technologies, Inc., 998 F.2d 157,
165 (3rd Cir. 1993)).
8
Plaintiff cites a legislative “finding” from the State of Washington regarding access to medical care, which
is non-binding on this Court. Revised Code of Washington, Title 70, Chapter 70.02.005.
9
Pub.L.No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996); 45 C.F.R. Subt. A, Subch. C, Pt. 164, Subpt. E, Refs & Annos.
10
Rec. Doc. 5.
5

2

The Court further finds that Plaintiff’s Motion requesting that all Court proceedings
(e.g., hearings) be closed to the public is premature considering there have been no
hearings scheduled to date in this matter. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion11 shall be denied
without prejudice, and she may re-urge her request should a hearing be scheduled before
the Court in the future.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on January 20, 2016.

S

JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

11

Rec. Doc. 5.

3