Ghadersohi v. Health Research, Inc. Roswell Park Cancer Institute

Filing 143

DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING Defendant Health Research, Inc.'s 133 Motion; DIRECTING the Clerk of the Court is to prepare certified copies of Docket Numbers 52 and 62, and deliver them to Health Research, Inc.'s counsel via first class mail, in a sealed envelope(s) marked "Confidential"; DIRECTING that Docket Numbers 52 and 62 shall otherwise remain as sealed documents on Civil Docket 08-CV-355; DIRECTING that Health Research, Inc.'s use of the certified copies shall conform with the July 17 Order of Justice Timothy J. Walker, issued in Index No.: 803611/2014 and the Affidavits of James R. Grasso, Esq. (Docket No. 134 at 11) and Heather D. Diddel, Esq. (Docket No. 140 at 11-12). Signed by William M. Skretny, Chief Judge on 8/11/2014. (MEAL) - CLERK TO FOLLOW UP -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ALI GHADERSOHI,
Plaintiff,
v.

DECISION AND ORDER
08-CV-355S

HEALTH RESEARCH, INC.,
ROSWELL PARK CANCER INSTITUTE and
HEALTH RESEARCH, INC.,
Defendants.

1.

This action was terminated in February 2009, after the parties filed a

stipulation of discontinuance. (Docket Nos. 45, 48.) After the case closed, vigorous
motion practice ensued, some of which involved matters necessitating that certain
documents be sealed. On June 20, 2014, Defendant Health Research Inc. (“HRI”) moved
to unseal two previously sealed documents: (1) a motion, with exhibits, filed by Plaintiff on
March 11, 2009 (Docket No. 52); and (2) the August 2, 2009 Decision and Order of this
Court on the motion (Docket No. 62). Plaintiff opposes the instant motion to unseal, which
is now fully briefed.
2.

On April 4, 2014, Plaintiff commenced a new action against HRI in New

York State Supreme Court, County of Erie. (Docket No. 134-1.) HRI asserts that “[t]he
State Court Action makes the same allegations and claims against HRI that [Plaintiff]
alleged . . . in his March 11, 2009 motion” and which were dismissed in this Court’s
August 2, 2009 decision. (Docket No. 134, ¶¶ 6-7.) HRI requests that Docket Nos. 52 and
62 be unsealed so that it may submit the documents as exhibits to a motion to dismiss the
1

new action on res judicata grounds. Counsel attests that HRI will request that the
presiding judge in the state court action issue an order that the documents be filed under
seal in that action. (Id. ¶ 10.)1
3.

Plaintiff opposes HRI’s motion to unseal because: (1) this case is closed

and HRI’s motion is against the law; (2) the request is irrelevant as the state court action is
not barred by res judicata; (3) unsealing would violate a confidentiality agreement; and (4)
unsealing will harm Plaintiff’s privacy and reputation. (Docket No. 138.) Before
addressing Plaintiff’s objections, the Court notes that HRI now has obtained an order in
the state court action directing that all documents, exhibits and materials submitted in
connection with its anticipated motion be filed under seal. (Docket No. 140-3.)
4.

For the following reasons, the Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments

unpersuasive and will grant HRI’s motion. Plaintiff’s first argument relates to the Court’s
most recent Decision and Order in this case (Docket No. 132), which addressed the
sixteenth motion filed by Plaintiff after the case was closed.

This Court ruled on

Plaintiff’s motion and then expressly prohibited him “from filing any further motions in this
closed case.” (Id.) Defendants were not included in the prohibition, and HRI’s motion is
not otherwise “against the law.” As to Plaintiff’s second concern, the decision of whether
any or all of his state court claims are barred by res judicata is solely within the province of
the state court judge. Federal courts do, however, recognize that res judicata and
collateral estoppel “relieve parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve
judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourages reliance on
1 In a reply affidavit, HRI noted that its deadline for filing a motion to dismiss in the state court action had
passed, and that it now intends to append the documents to a motion for summary judgment which will
include a res judicata argument. (Docket No. 140.)

2

adjudication.” Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94, 101 S. Ct. 411, 66 L. Ed. 2d 308 (1980).
This principle favors HRI, particularly where, as here, precautions are taken to safeguard
any confidential information. These safeguards, already in place pursuant to the state
court’s sealing order and HRI’s sworn statements regarding its intended handling and use
of the documents, sufficiently address Plaintiff’s third and fourth concerns.
IT HEREBY IS ORDERED, that Defendant Health Research, Inc.’s Motion (Docket
No. 133) is GRANTED.
FURTHER, that the Clerk of the Court is directed to prepare certified copies of
Docket Numbers 52 and 62, and deliver them to Health Research, Inc.’s counsel via first
class mail, in a sealed envelope(s) marked “Confidential”;
FURTHER, that Docket Numbers 52 and 62 shall otherwise remain as sealed
documents on Civil Docket 08-CV-355; and
FURTHER, that Health Research, Inc.’s use of the certified copies shall conform
with the July 17 Order of Justice Timothy J. Walker, issued in Index No.: 803611/2014
and the Affidavits of James R. Grasso, Esq. (Docket No. 134 ¶ 11) and Heather D. Diddel,
Esq. (Docket No. 140 ¶¶ 11-12).
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 11, 2014
Buffalo, New York
/s/William M. Skretny
WILLIAM M. SKRETNY
Chief Judge
United States District Court

3