MCLEAN v. DELHAIZE AMERICA TRANSPORTATION LLC

Filing 43

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEAL granting in part and denying in part 39 Motion to Seal By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JAMES MCLEAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DELHAIZE AMERICA DISTRIBUTION
LLC,

)
)
)
)
) Docket no. 2:18-cv-00152-GZS
)
)
)
)
)

Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL
Before the Court is Defendant Delhaize America Distribution, LLC’s unopposed Motion
to Seal Certain Documents (ECF No. 39), which the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN
PART as further explained below.
To the extent Defendant’s Motion requests that ECF Nos. 38 and 39 remain sealed, the
Motion is DENIED. Upon the Court’s review and determination that they contain no confidential
information, the Court hereby ORDERS that ECF Nos. 38 and 39 shall be UNSEALED.
That said, the Court also ORDERS that the following exhibits may remain SEALED
pending further order of the Court: ECF No. 38-1 consisting of a twenty-six-page deposition
transcript of a non-party witness; ECF No. 38-2 consisting of nineteen pages of internal Delhaize
correspondence pertaining to the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) leave of that non-party
witness; ECF No. 38-3 consisting of a six-page subpoena and attached exhibit ordering that nonparty witness to appear for a deposition and produce specified documents; ECF No. 38-4 consisting
of sixty-five pages of documents related to the FMLA leave of that non-party witness; and ECF
No. 38-5 consisting of sixteen pages of documents related to the FMLA leave of that non-party

witness. In the Court’s view, it is possible to produce redacted versions of these exhibits for the
public record by removing any confidential medical and/or personally identifying information.
Therefore, Defendant’s counsel shall file under seal proposed redacted versions of these exhibits
no later than Wednesday February 6, 2019.1 Upon receipt of Defendant’s proposed redacted
exhibits, the Court will review them and determine whether they may be included in the public
record.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ George Z. Singal
United States District Judge
Dated this 23rd day of January, 2019.

As to the subpoena, Defendant’s counsel is free to propose redacting the deponent’s name and address, but other
portions of the subpoena shall not be redacted.
1

2