Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. McLeod Health, Inc

Filing 39

ORDER granting 34 Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 08/24/2015.(dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )
COMMISSION,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
-vs)
)
)
McLEOD HEALTH, INC.
,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 4:14-cv-3615-BHH-TER

ORDER

Presently before the court is Defendant’s Motion to Seal (Document # 34), in which it seeks
to seal it’s motion for summary judgment and the exhibits thereto.1 Plaintiff consents to the motion.
All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g), DSC.

This action is brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §
12101, et seq., and involves the medical condition of Cecilia Whitten, who is not a named party in
this litigation, but for whom the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission seeks relief. The
medical records relied upon by Defendant in its motion for summary judgment have previously been
marked confidential pursuant to the Confidentiality Order (Document # 22) entered in this case.
In addition to the sensitive nature of the medical records, the parties represent that the
memorandum in support of the motion for summary judgment as well as the deposition excerpts
attached as exhibits discuss Ms. Whitten’s medical records and her medical condition in detail, such
that redaction of the sensitive information would render the filings meaningless.

1

Public notice of this request to seal has been satisfied through docketing of the Motion to
Seal. See Local Civil Rule 5.03(D), D.S.C.

For these reasons, the Motion to Seal (Document # 34) is GRANTED, and Defendant’s motion
for summary judgment, memorandum, and exhibits, as well as the subsequent response and reply briefs
and exhibits shall be filed under seal. However, the court reserves the right to review this order after
all briefs and exhibits are filed, and the court has had an opportunity to review all documents at issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge
August 24, 2015
Florence, South Carolina

-2-