Critical Nurse Staffing v. Four Corners Health Care
Filing
187
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 186 Motion for Leave to File Sealed Document. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 11/4/2019. (las)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CRITICAL NURSE STAFFING,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE REDACTED
VERSIONS OF DOCUMENTS
Plaintiff,
v.
FOUR CORNERS HEALTH CARE
CORPORATION, a Utah Corporation; and
FOUR CORNERS HEALTH CARE – NM,
a New Mexico Limited Liability Company,
Case No. 2:13-CV-646-TS
District Judge Ted Stewart
Defendants.
I. BACKGROUND
This matter is before the Court on Four Corners Health Care Corporation and Four
Corners Health Care’s (collectively “Defendants”) Motion to Substitute Redacted Versions of
Documents, filed October 14, 2019. 1 This Motion is in reference to a case dismissed on
December 1, 2016. 2 For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny the Motion.
II. DISCUSSION
Defendants seek substitution of documents on the Court’s docket with alternate versions
that redact patient names. As Defendants point out, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 requires
that a person or entity who submits a court filing containing “an individual’s social-security
number, taxpayer-identification number, or birth date, the name of an individual known to be a
1
Docket No. 186.
2
See Docket No. 185.
minor, or a financial-account number” redact certain information. 3 The patient names that
Defendants seek to redact are not included among the protected information types listed under
Rule 5.2, and Defendants did not redact these names when originally submitting their filings.4
The Court has no information to suggest any of the relevant patient names are for minors. While
Defendants point to language in the local rules that “[t]he court may order redaction of additional
personal identifiers by motion and order in a specific case or as to a specific document or
documents,” 5 they do not provide justification for the Court to take such an action.
The local rules note that “[t]he records of the court are presumptively open to the public. .
. . Unless restricted by statute or court order, the public shall have access to all documents filed
with the court and to all court proceedings.” 6 The local rules further elaborate that “[o]n motion
of a party and a showing of good cause, a judge may order that a Document be sealed.” 7 These
rules consistently reflect a strong policy interest in preserving public access to complete court
documents. 8
“Courts have long recognized a common-law right of access to judicial records.” 9 While
not an absolute right, there is a “strong presumption in favor of public access.” 10 “The party
3
FED. R. CIV. P. 5.2(a).
4
See Docket Nos. 132, 155, 157, 172.
5
DUCivR 5.2-1(a).
6
DUCivR 5-3(a).
7
Id.
8
See DUCivR 5-2, 5-3, 5.2-1.
9
Colony Ins. Co. v. Burke, 698 F.3d 1222, 1241 (10th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
10
Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007).
2
seeking to overcome the presumption of public access to the documents bears the burden of
showing some significant interest that outweighs the presumption.” 11 This presumption is one of
access to complete court documents. 12 Absent any showing of an interest that outweighs
presumptive public disclosure, the Court cannot favor redaction.
III. CONCLUSION
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Substitute Redacted Versions of Documents
(Docket No. 186) is DENIED.
DATED November 4, 2019
BY THE COURT:
11
Helm v. Kansas, 656 F.3d 1277, 1292 (10th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
12
See e.g., DUCivR 5-3(a)(2) (providing that counsel make limited redactions to prevent
overdesignation of sealed documents, including to “redact personal identifiers, as set forth in
DUCivR 5.2-1 . . . ,” “redact the confidential portions of a Document when they are not directly
pertinent to the issues before the court . . . ,” or “if the protectable information is pertinent to the
legal issues before the court, redact the protectable information from the Document . . . .”); see
also United States v. Jackson, No. 16-CR-2362-WJ, No. 16-CR-2363-WJ, 2018 WL 6605949, at
*3 (D. N.M. Dec. 17, 2018) (allowing limited redaction after the court considered the “public
interest in accessing the full opinion and weighed that interest against law enforcement’s interest
in the protection of sensitive technical information…” and finding that government overcame the
“presumption in favor of unlimited public access”); Aviva Sports, Inc. v. Fingerhut Direct Mktg.,
Inc., 960 F. Supp. 2d 1011, 1014 (D. Minn. 2013) (rejecting defendant’s argument for redaction
because “the public’s interest in full access to the judicial order is strong and [defendant] failed
to show a strong countervailing interest”); Peru v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 10-CV-1506-MSKBNB, 2010 WL 2724085, at *2 (D. Colo. July 7, 2010) (finding plaintiff failed to show that
concern over disclosure of certain private facts about her “outweighs the significant public
interest in full access to judicial records”); Fanning v. Washita Freight Systems, Inc., No. CIV08-411-C, 2009 WL 536860, at *1, n.1 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 3, 2009) (noting that the “Plaintiff’s
privacy interests do not outweigh the substantial public interest in favor of full disclosure of
judicial records”).
3
_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge
4
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?