BERTOLOTTI v. AUTOZONE, INC. et al

Filing 30

OPINION FILED. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 9/22/15. (js)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
_________________________________
PENELOPE BERTOLOTTI,
Plaintiff,

Civil No. 14-4315 (NLH/JS)

v.
AUZONE, INC. et al.,

OPINION

Defendants.
_________________________________
Drake P. Bearden, Jr., Esquire
Kevin M. Costello, Esquire
Costello & Mains
18000 Horizon Way
Suite 800
Mt. Laurel, New Jersey 08054
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Matthew Adam Green, Esquire
Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippell, LLP
200 Lake Drive East
Suite 110
Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002
Attorneys for Defendants
HILLMAN, District Judge:
Presently before the Court is a motion [Doc. No. 20] filed
by Defendants AutoZoners, LLC1 and Richard Thomson pursuant to
Local Civil Rule 5.3 seeking an Order to Seal certain exhibits
to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment because they contain

1

The complaint names AutoZone, Inc. as a defendant, but the
Notice of Removal clarifies that the proper name of this
defendant is AutoZoners, LLC.
1

the medical records of Plaintiff, Penelope Bertolotti.

The

Court has considered Defendants’ submission and notes that
Plaintiff does not oppose the motion.

The Court has decided

this matter pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78 and, for the reasons
that follow, Defendants’ motion to seal will be granted.
I.

BACKGROUND
In this employment discrimination action, Plaintiff alleges

that Defendants discriminated against her based on a disability,
failed to engage in the interactive process, and retaliated
against her for requesting an accommodation, all in violation of
the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

The Court has

subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332.
Defendants have moved for summary judgment,2 arguing that
Plaintiff was never released by her doctor to return to work and
was therefore unable to return.

After granting Plaintiff twelve

months of leave, Defendants terminated her employment pursuant
to company policy.

In support of the motion, Defendants

submitted a number of Plaintiff’s medical records, which were
attached to deposition transcripts, and which Defendants contend
contain Plaintiff’s protected health information.

Accordingly,

2

The Court addresses the summary judgment motion by separate
Opinion and Order, also entered on this date.
2

Defendants seek to have those exhibits that contain such
information sealed.
II.

STANDARD FOR SEALING UNDER L. CIV. R. 5.3(c)
In this District, Local Civil Rule 5.3 governs all motions

to seal or otherwise restrict public access to materials
filed with the Court and judicial proceedings themselves.

The

rule provides that in order to place a docket entry under seal,
the motion to seal must be publicly filed and “shall describe
(a) the nature of the materials or proceedings at issue, (b) the
legitimate private or public interests which warrant the relief
sought, (c) the clearly defined and serious injury that would
result if the relief sought is not granted, and (d) why a less
restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not available.”
L. Civ. R. 5.3(c)(2).

The party moving to seal must submit a

proposed order that contains proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law.

Id.

III. DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed the documents that are the subject
of Defendants’ motion to seal and concludes that sealing is
warranted at this time.

As an initial matter, the Court notes

that while litigants have an interest in privacy, the public
also has a right to obtain information about judicial
proceedings.

Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786

(3d Cir. 1995).

In order to rebut the presumption of public
3

access, the party seeking confidentiality must demonstrate “good
cause” by establishing that disclosure will cause a “‘clearly
defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure.’”

Id.

(quoting Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1071
(3d Cir. 1984)).

“‘Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated

by specific examples or articulated reasoning,’ do not support a
good cause showing.”

Id. (quoting Cipollone v. Liggett Group,

Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S.
976, 108 S. Ct. 487, 98 L. Ed. 2d 485 (1987)).
Here, Defendants seek to seal only a few exhibits submitted
in support of their summary judgment motion.3

These documents

are medical records or contain information concerning
Plaintiff’s medical conditions.

Many of the documents also

contain Plaintiff’s social security number.
The Court finds that the factors set forth in L. Civ. R.
5.3(c) warrant sealing of the exhibits enumerated in Defendants’
motion.

The documents to be sealed contain Plaintiff’s private

3

In particular, Defendants seek to seal the following exhibits
to the Certification of Matthew A. Green, Esq.: Exhibits P7, P8,
P11, P15 and P16 to the Deposition Transcript of Penelope
Bertolotti, which are included in Exhibit 1 of the Green
Certification; Exhibits M8, M10, and M15 to the Deposition
Transcript of Jean Milton, which are included in Exhibit 4 of
the Green Certification; and Exhibits RT-5, RT-7, RT-12, and RT15 to the Deposition Transcript of Richard Thomson, which are
included in Exhibit 5 of the Green Certification. Many of these
exhibits are duplicative of each other. For instance, M15 is
the same document as P16 and RT-12 and RT-15; P7 and RT-5 are
the same document; and P8 and RT-7 are the same document.
4

health information, which is protected from disclosure under the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”).
The Third Circuit has recognized the important privacy interest
in one’s medical records.

See Everett v. Nort, 547 F. App’x

117, 122 n.9 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing Doe v. Delie, 257 F.3d 309
(3d Cir. 2001)).

Furthermore, public disclosure of an

individual’s medical history and personal identifying numbers
has been held to be a clearly defined and serious injury
sufficient to support sealing of medical records.

Harris v.

Nielsen, Civ. No. 09-2982, 2010 WL 2521434, at *4 (D.N.J. June
15, 2010).

Finally, less restrictive alternatives are not

available as the documents cannot be redacted, and all other
portions of the summary judgment motion will be publicly
available.

In balancing the potential injury to Plaintiff if

her medical information and social security number become
publicly available versus the public interest in access to
judicial proceedings, the Court finds good cause for granting
Defendants’ motion to seal.

5

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that

sealing under Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) is appropriate with
respect to the exhibits identified herein.
An Order consistent with this Opinion will be entered.

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
Dated: September 22, 2015
At Camden, New Jersey

6