Reynolds v. Smith et al

Filing 239

ORDER granting 233 Motion to File Document Under Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 2/21/2017. (agm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
DOROTHEA REYNOLDS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action 2:11-cv-277
Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Jolson

ROBERT W. SMITH, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
On January 30, 2017, Defendants sought leave to file a numeric key to inmate names
referenced in Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Accompanying Exhibits under
seal. (Doc. 231). In support of their Motion, Defendants stated only that they “move[d] to file
the numeric key under seal pursuant to this Court’s protective order.” (Id. at 1). On February 9,
2017, the Court denied Defendants’ Motion, but held that Defendants could “re-file a more
detailed and narrowly tailored motion to seal.” (Doc. 232 at 3) (citing Blasi, 2016 WL 3765539,
at *1 (noting that a proper motion to seal must “demonstrate[] a compelling reason for filing
under seal, . . . must be narrowly tailored to serve that reason,” and must “analyze in detail,
document by document, the propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations”)).
Defendants re-filed their unopposed Motion for Leave to File Under Seal on February 15,
2017. (Doc. 233). In the instant Motion, Defendants provide the requisite specificity necessary
for the Court to determine whether filing under seal is appropriate. See Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue
Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 307-08 (6th Cir. 2016). Specifically, Defendants
explain their statutory obligation to maintain confidentiality of all inmates’ names and how the

numeric key satisfies that obligation. For those reasons, and for good cause shown, Defendants’
Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Doc. 233) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: February 21, 2017

/s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE