Carey, et al v. Whitehall Surgery Center, Ltd., et al

Filing 13

OPINION and ORDER granting 9 Motion to Join in other Defendants' filings and denying with prejudice 11 Motion to File Document Under Seal. To the extent Plaintiffs have not yet done so, they are DIRECTED to produce an unredacted version of their motion to Defendants immediately. Plaintiffs are further DIRECTED to file an unredacted version of their motion for a TRO by 12:00 p.m. on November 15, 2023. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 11/14/23. (sem)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Dr. Jeffrey Carey, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 2:23-cv-3774

v.
Whitehall Surgery Center, Ltd.
d/b/a Pickerington Surgery Center,
et al.,
Defendants.

Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Deavers

OPINION AND ORDER

The Court must, again, tidy up the docket.
First, Plaintiffs have filed a redacted motion on the docket, ECF No. 10,
and moved for leave to file an unredacted version under seal, ECF No. 11. As
the Court observed yesterday, a party may not unilaterally file sealed documents
(which includes redactions) without leave of Court. See S.D. Ohio Local Rule
5.2.1(a); cf. Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mi., 825 F.3d 299, 307
(6th Cir. 2016) (“[T]hat a mere protective order restricts access to discovery
materials is not reason enough . . . to seal from public view materials that the
parties have chosen to place in the court record” (emphasis removed)). The
Court is aware that time of is the essence. Nonetheless, the parties are
CAUTIONED not to file any other redacted documents without first obtaining
leave of Court and are further CAUTIONED that the Court will not consider any
unapproved redacted filings.

Turning to Plaintiffs’ motion to seal, it is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
There is a “strong presumption in favor of openness as to court records.” Shane
Grp., 825 F.3d at 305 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has explained,
[t]he burden of overcoming that presumption [of openness] is borne
by the party that seeks to seal [the records]. In re Cendant Corp., 260
F.3d 183, 194 (3d Cir. 2001). The burden is a heavy one: “Only the
most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial
records.” In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th
Cir. 1983) . . . And even where a party can show a compelling reason
why certain documents or portions thereof should be sealed, the seal
itself must be narrowly tailored to serve that reason. See, e.g., PressEnter. Co. v. Superior Court of California, Riverside Cnty., 464 U.S.
501, 509–10, 104 S. Ct. 819, 78 L.Ed. 2d 629 (1984).
Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305.
Here, Plaintiffs argue that they “take no position” as to whether the relevant
materials “actually warrant confidential treatment.” Mot., ECF No. 11. Instead,
Plaintiffs seek leave to file under seal “to avoid inadvertently disclosing
information that may be non-public, competitively secret, trade secret, [and/or]
business/strategy materials[.]” Id. This speculation falls short of the “heavy
burden” that must be met to seal public filings. Accordingly, the motion to seal,
ECF No. 11, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
To the extent Plaintiffs have not yet done so, they are DIRECTED to
produce an unredacted version of their motion to Defendants immediately.
Plaintiffs are further DIRECTED to file an unredacted version of their motion for a
TRO by 12:00 p.m. on November 15, 2023. If any party believes that any
Case No. 2:23-cv-3774

Page 2 of 3

portion of that motion should be redacted, that party may file a properly
supported motion to seal which analyzes “in detail, document by document, the
propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.” Shane Grp., 825
F.3d at 305 (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Next, certain Defendants (“Moving Defendants”) move to join in other
Defendants’ filings. ECF No. 9. To the extent Moving Defendants have not
already joined those filings, see ECF No. 2, the motion is GRANTED.
Finally, the parties are ORDERED to confer and propose times and dates
in the next few days when they would be available for a preliminary conference.
The parties shall submit their proposed times and dates to
[e-mail] by 3:00 p.m. on November 14, 2023.
The Clerk shall terminate ECF Nos. 9 and 11.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___/s/ Michael H. Watson___________
MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 2:23-cv-3774

Page 3 of 3