Lenox et al v. Group Health Plan et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Documents 1 through 15 and Document 17 shall remain sealed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall unseal the remainder of the case, including future pleadings, unless the parties file appropriate motions to file under seal in accordance with E.D. Mo. L.R. 13.05(A). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall resubmit their redacted Amended Complaint in compliance with this Court's Memorandum and Order and E.D. Mo. L.R. 2.17 no later than July 14, 2015. (Response to Court due by 7/14/2015.) Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 7/7/2015. (NEB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
JAYSON LENOX and
GROUP HEALTH PLAN and COVENTRY
HEALTH CARE, INC. and MHNET
No. 4:15CV864 RLW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs ' Response to Court' s Order of June 23 , 2015,
ordering the parties to indicate which documents should remain sealed in this matter. Plaintiffs
request that the matters previously filed in this matter remain sealed. They also ask that, instead
of using the minor child' s initials as required by this Court' s local rules, the Court allow the child
to be called Minor Child and allow Plaintiffs/parents to be identified as Parent 1 and Parent 2.
Plaintiffs further request that all mental health records be confidential and have Plaintiffs names,
as well as the minor child' s name, redacted from all records. Finally, they ask that Plaintiff
Jayson Lenox ' s employer, Niedner, Bodeux, Carmichael, Huff, Lenox, Pashos and Simpson,
LLP, also be redacted from all pleadings and exhibits. Mr. Lenox is also serving as Plaintiffs'
attorney in this matter.
The Court finds that all future pleadings incorporating the minor child' s name shall use
the initials, J.L., in accordance with E.D. Mo. L.R. 2.17. Further, while Plaintiffs request their
identities and the identity of Mr. Lenox' s employer be kept anonymous, the Court notes that
Plaintiffs have not sufficiently demonstrated that they '" [have] a substantial privacy right which
outweighs the customary constitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial
proceedings. "' Roe v. St. Louis Univ., No. 4:08CV1474 JCH, 2009 WL 910738, at *3 (E.D. Mo.
April 2, 2009) (quoting Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 323 (11th Cir. 1992) (internal quotations and
Courts have identified several factors common to those cases where courts
allow a plaintiff to proceed under a fictitious name. Id. Applicable to this case would be a
situation '" where the plaintiff is required to disclose information of the utmost intimacy. "' Id.
(quoting Doe fl.M v. St. Louis Cnty. , No. 4:07-CV-2116 (CEJ), 2008 WL 151629, at *1 (E.D.
Mo. Jan. 14, 2008)). While the Court understands that Plaintiffs desire to remain anonymous in
this case due to their son' s medical condition, they have not made the requisite showing that the
disclosure of Plaintiffs' identities or Mr. Lenox' s employer would reveal information of the
utmost intimacy which outweighs the presumption of openness in court proceedings. Likewise,
with regard to the redaction of medical records, the Court finds that the records shall be redacted
in compliance with E.D. Mo. L.R. 2.17. To the extent that Plaintiffs wish to keep the medical
records confidential, they may file an appropriate motion for a protective order, with an attached
proposed order for the Court' s review.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Documents 1through15 and Document 17 shall
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall unseal the remainder of
the case, including future pleadings, unless the parties file appropriate motions to file under seal
in accordance with E.D. Mo. L.R. 13.05(A).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall resubmit their redacted Amended
Complaint in compliance with this Court' s Memorandum and Order and E.D. Mo. L.R. 2.17 no
later than July 14, 2015.
Dated this 7th day of July, 2015 .
RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?