Allen et al v. American Cyanamid Co et al

Filing 1064

ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 3/22/21 that Sherwin-Williams' motion to restrict documents 611 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs motion to restrict documents 969 are GRANTED. Parties' motions to restrict documents 853 ; 887 ; 899 ; 912 ; 945 ; 959 are DENIED. (cc: all counsel)(jad)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MANIYA ALLEN, et al.,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN CYANAMID et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 11-CV-0055

DIJONAE TRAMMEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN CYANAMID et al.,
Defendants;

Case No. 14-CV-1423

DECISION AND ORDER
The plaintiffs in these cases allege they were injured when they ingested paint
containing white lead carbonate. Recently, I decided a number of pre-trial motions in
these cases. In support of those motions, the parties submitted documents including
plaintiffs’ medical information. The parties move to restrict these materials from public
review. The motions to restrict filings are unopposed, but because I have an obligation
to the public to ensure that court filings remain open to public review unless good cause
for restricting them is shown, I must still decide whether the materials may be restricted.
See, e.g., Baxter Int’l Inc., v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002).
A person’s general interest in keeping medical information private does not
necessarily override the public’s interest in having access to that information.
“Documents that affect the disposition of federal litigation are presumptively open to
public view, even if the litigants strongly prefer secrecy, unless a statute, rule, or
privilege justifies confidentiality.” In re Sprecht, 622 F.3d 697, 901 (7th Cir. 2010).

Case 2:11-cv-00055-LA Filed 03/22/21 Page 1 of 4 Document 1064

Restricting medical records is appropriate where “a plaintiff’s interest in privacy
outweighs the probative value of the information contained in the records.” Matthews v.
Waukesha Cty., No. 10-cv-440, 2012 WL 695669 at *12 (E.D. Wis. March 1, 2012)
(citing Doe v. Oberweiss Dairy, 456 F.3d 704, 718 (7th Cir. 2006)). “In short, while many
litigants would prefer that their private medical information be kept from the public, that
preference, without more, is insufficient to overcome to the long-standing tradition that
litigation be open to the public.” Walker v. McArdle, No. 18-cv-312, 2019 WL 1980357,
at *1 (E.D. Wis. May 2, 2019). Here, the plaintiffs placed their medical histories at issue
when they filed these suits, and the parties cite no case suggesting that a person who
chooses to use the public courts to litigate a claim relating to his or her health is entitled
to shield his or her health information from public review. See Henley v. C.R. Bard, Inc.,
No. 14-cv-59, 2019 WL 6529433, at *6 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 4, 2019). Accordingly, no
document may remain restricted simply because it relates to the plaintiffs’ medical
histories. Id. I will therefore deny the motions to restrict, except those related to the
defendants’ motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding 3030 North 21st Street and
those related to plaintiffs’ summary judgement on the issue of superseding intervening
cause which will be addressed below.
The documents the parties sought to restrict contain information, such as the full
birthdates of the plaintiffs, which must be redacted pursuant to Rule 5.2(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties are ordered to file redacted copies of the
following documents:
•

In 11-cv-0055, ECF nos. 516-1, 516-2, 516-3, 516-4, 854-3, 854-4, 854-5,
854-6, 889-7, 897-7, 897-8, 897-9, 897-10, 911-5, 911-6, 911-7, 911-8,

Case 2:11-cv-00055-LA Filed 03/22/21 Page 2 of 4 Document 1064

911-9, 911-10, 911-11, 911-12, 911-14, 911-26, 946-1, 946-2, 946-3,
946-4, 961-4, and 961-5.
•

In 14-cv-1423, ECF no. 612-3, 612-4, 612-5, 612-6, 643-7, 656-7, 656-8,
656-9, 656-10, 665-5, 665-6, 665-7, 665-8, 665-9, 665-10, 665-11, 66512, 665-14, 665-26, 695-1, 695-2, 695-3, 695-4, 709-4, and 709-5.

The clerk of courts is directed to replace the original documents with the redacted
versions when they are filed.
Finally, some of the documents which the parties have moved to restrict did not
inform my decision with respect to the related motions. As such, these documents may
remain restricted. See Baxter, 297 F.3d at 545 (only documents that “underpin the
judicial decision” are open to public inspection); see also City of Greenville, Ill. V.
Sungenta Crop Protection, LLC, 764 F.3d 695, 698 (7th Cir. 2014) (the public has no
right to access documents that “cannot conceivably aid the understanding of judicial
decision making”). I will grant the motions to restrict that are related to the defendant’s
motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding 3030 North 21st Street and those related
to plaintiffs’ summary judgement on the issue of superseding intervening cause. The
following documents may therefore remain restricted:
•

In 11-cv-0055, ECF nos. 523-3 and 970-16.

•

In 14-cv-1423, ECF no. 716-16.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Sherwin-Williams’ motion to restrict
documents (11-cv-0055, ECF no. 611) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

Case 2:11-cv-00055-LA Filed 03/22/21 Page 3 of 4 Document 1064

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to restrict documents (11-cv0055, ECF no. 969; 14-cv-1423, ECF no. 715) are GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ motions to restrict documents (11cv-0055, ECF no. 853; 11-cv-0055, ECF no. 887; 11-cv-0055, ECF no. 899; 11-cv0055, ECF no. 912; 11-cv-0055, ECF no. 945, 11-cv-0055, ECF no. 959; 14-cv-1423,
ECF no. 611; 14-cv-1423, ECF no. 640; 14-cv-1423, ECF no. 647; 14-cv-1423, ECF no.
666; 14-cv-1423, ECF no. 694; 14-cv-1423, ECF no. 708) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that parties will file redacted copies of the abovelisted documents.

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 22nd day of March, 2021.
s/Lynn Adelman____________
LYNN ADELMAN
U.S. District Judge

Case 2:11-cv-00055-LA Filed 03/22/21 Page 4 of 4 Document 1064