Swanson v. Abbott Laboratories et al

Filing 65

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 57 , 60 Motions to File Document Under Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on June 29, 2017. (jlk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

SHARON SWANSON, Individually
and as parent and natural guardian
of D.S., a minor,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 2:14-cv-1052
Judge George C. Smith
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

v.

ABBOTT LABORATORIES, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
The parties have filed motions for leave to file certain exhibits and transcripts under seal
relating to dispositive motions and Daubert motions, including medical records containing
patient protected information, deposition transcripts containing testimony previously designated
as confidential under the parties’ protective order, documents produced by the parties designated
as confidential under the protective order, and expert reports referring to information designated
as confidential under the protective order, including protected patient information. (ECF Nos. 57
and 60.)
For good cause shown, as they relate to the requests for leave to file under seal medical
records and expert reports referring to protected patient information, the parties’ motions are
GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to accept for filing under seal these medical records and
expert reports referring to patient information. Any party filing under seal an expert report

referring to patient information is ORDERED to file a redacted version of the report on the
Court’s public docket within SEVEN (7) DAYS from the date of this Order.
As to the remaining requests, the parties seek permission to seal transcripts and reports
simply because the parties have deemed that information confidential under their protective
order. While parties to litigation may maintain certain materials in confidence, the actual filing
of documents—which implicates the interest of the public in unencumbered access to court
proceedings—should not routinely be made under seal. Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust
Co., 78 F.3d 219, 227 (6th Cir. 1996); Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d
1165, 1177 (6th Cir. 1983). Because there has been no showing why the remaining referenced
transcripts, documents, and expert reports should be filed under seal, the parties’ motions for
leave to file under seal as it relates to this information are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Accordingly, the parties’ motions (ECF Nos. 57 and 60) are GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART consistent with the foregoing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: June 29, 2017

/s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2