Ribble et al v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation et al

Filing 229

ORDER Regarding Proposed Redactions as addressed in 228 Motion Hearing, signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 05/20/2013. The Court has reviewed the proposed redactions and approves, with one exception. See Order for full detail. Kimberly Clark is directed to contact the clerk to make arrangements for efiling the redacted copies of the previously sealed documents. (cc: all counsel)(Griesbach, William)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN RICHARD S SCHMIDT, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 09-C-643 KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, et al., Defendant. ORDER ON PROPOSED REDACTIONS As requested by the parties, the court has reviewed the previously sealed records with the proposed redactions in the above matter and approves the proposed redactions, with one exception. On the last page of a collection of documents relating to the severance agreement with Santiago Sanchez, a handwritten social security number and date of birth appear. These should be redacted per Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a). The document is located at tab 2 of the document provided for review, Attachment 81, Bates No. D0020990, a part of docket 73-82. In all other respects, the redactions appear appropriate. They relate to salary and settlement amounts. The court finds good cause for the proposed redactions. Specifically, individual employees have a privacy interest in the amount of their salaries and maintaining the settlement amounts as confidential furthers the strong interest in settlement of disputed actions. Moreover, neither the public nor other employees have any interest in these matters. Accordingly, Kimberly Clark is directed to contact the clerk to make arrangements for efiling the redacted copies of the previously sealed documents. SO ORDERED this 20th day of May, 2013. s/ William C. Griesbach William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge United States District Court

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?