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)
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?