CUTURILO v. JEFFERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
Filing
42
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER DENYING 41 Motion to Seal Case, or, alternatively, to either Seal Certain Documents or Redact Certain Documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 02/23/2012. (cms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SHERIE CUTURILO,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 10-1723
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Mitchell, J.
Presently
before
the
Court
is
the
Parties’
Amended
Joint Motion to Seal the Case, or, alternatively, to either Seal
Certain Documents or Redact Certain Documents (Doc. # 41).
For
the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied.
Plaintiff,
Sherie
Cuturilo
(“Cuturilo”)
against Jefferson Regional Medical Center,
filed
suit
(“defendant”), her
former employer, on December 22, 2010 alleging violations of the
Family
and
Medical
Leave
Act
of
1993,
54(“FMLA”) and a state law slander action.
29
U.S.C.
§
2601-
After being advised
by the parties that a settlement had been reached in the matter,
the Court administratively closed the case on December 7, 2011.
On January 10, 2012, the parties filed a joint motion to
seal the case.
The Court denied the motion, explaining that the
1
parties had not identified sufficient cause to justify sealing
the case, but afforded them the opportunity to file an amended
motion (Doc. # 37).
amended
joint
On February 7, 2012, the parties filed an
motion
to
seal
the
case,
or,
in
the
first
alternative, to seal certain case documents, or, in the second
alternative, to redact specified case documents.
There is a presumption of access to judicial records.
In re Cendant Corporation, 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001).
A
party seeking to override the right to public access:
‘bears the burden of showing that the
material is the kind of information that
courts will protect’ and that ‘disclosure
will work a clearly defined and serious
injury to the party seeking closure.’ Miller
v. Indiana Hospital, 16 F.3d 549, 551 (3d
Cir. 1994). In delineating the injury to be
prevented, specificity is essential. Broad
allegations of harm, bereft of specific
examples
or
articulated
reasoning,
are
insufficient. As is often the case when there
are
conflicting
interests,
a
balancing
process is contemplated. ‘[T]he strong common
law presumption of access must be balanced
against
the
factors
militating
against
access. The burden is on the party who seeks
to overcome the presumption of access to show
that the interest in secrecy outweighs the
presumption.’
In re Cendant, 260 F.3d at 194 (internal citations and
quotations omitted).
Cuturilo
contends
that
2
public
disclosure
of
her
medical
information
health-related
and
claim
the
against
fact
her
that
former
she
filed
employer
a
medical
will
likely
have a chilling effect on her ability to find new employment.
She
also
claims
that
she
will
possibly
suffer
great
embarrassment if the public can access her medical information.
Cuturilo has not established that her need for secrecy
outweighs the presumption in favor of access.
she
cites
supporting
sealing
involved
First, the cases
matters
where
the
specified case documents included actual medical records, see
Eugene S. v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, 663
F.3d 1124, 1136 (10th Cir. 2011), In re Zyprexa Injunction, 474
F.
Supp.
2d
385,
394
(E.D.N.Y.
2007),
and
Abbey
v.
Hawaii
Employers Mutual Insurance Company (HEMIC), 760 F.Supp. 2d 1005,
1013 (D. Haw. 2010), or, where the documents sealed were not
described with particularity, see Lombardi v. TriWest Healthcare
Alliance Corporation, NO. CV-08-02381-PHX-FJM, 2009 WL 1212170,
at *1 (D. Ariz. May 4, 2009).
In contrast, here, the complained-of pleadings do not
specifically
reference
plaintiff’s
medical
condition
and
medical records are not included in any of the filings.
her
The
documents, instead, resemble garden variety filings common to
any FMLA lawsuit.
impugn
her
As to Cuturilo’s claim that certain documents
personal
reputation
in
the
nursing
field,
her
anxiety in this regard is no different from the concern any
3
employee would have when they are terminated and then sues their
employer.
Additionally, Cuturilo does not present any specific
evidence
that
employment
or
she
that
has
experienced
she
has
any
suffered
problems
any
seeking
particularized
embarrassment.
Cuturilo also requests that, in lieu of sealing, the
statements
redacted.
she
identifies
Plaintiff
as
refers
confidential
to
Fed.
R.
and/or
Civ.
P
damaging
5.2(e)
be
which
provides:
Rule 5.2. Privacy Protection For Filings Made
with the Court
(e) Protective Orders. For good cause, the
court may by order in a case:
(1)
require
information; or
redaction
of
additional
(2) limit or prohibit a nonparty's remote
electronic access to a document filed with
the court
The Court initially questions the applicability of
this Rule, which pertains to protective orders, at this stage of
the proceedings.
In any event, the Comment to the Rule reads:
Subdivision (e) provides that the court can
by order in a particular case for good cause
require
more
extensive
redaction
than
otherwise required by the Rule. Nothing in
this subdivision is intended to affect the
limitations on sealing that are otherwise
applicable to the court.
4
Thus, the redaction rule does not trump the disfavoring of
restricted access.
In sum, when weighed against the significant public
interest in access to judicial records, Cuturilo has made an
insignificant
interests.
showing
of
potential
harm
to
her
privacy
She has thus failed to meet her burden of justifying
the sealing of the judicial record, in whole or in part, or
redaction of the case documents.
AND
NOW,
this
23rd
day
of
February,
2012,
for
the
reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Joint
Motion to Seal/Redact the Record (Doc. # 41) is DENIED.
s/Robert C. Mitchell
Robert C. Mitchell
United States Magistrate Judge
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?