Gillispie v. Correct Care Solutions LLC et al

Filing 91

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 1/18/2019 GRANTING 85 defendants' motion to restrict document. Docket nos. 87, 88 through 88-27, and 89 RESTRICTED to case partiicpants only. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Kevin Gillispie at Green Bay Correctional Institution) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
KEVIN EUGENE GILLISPIE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-cv-1592-pp

CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RESTRICT DOCUMENT
(DKT. NO. 85)
______________________________________________________________________________
On December 17, 2018, defendants Correct Care Solutions, Adeyemi
Fatoki and Emily Blozinski filed a motion for summary judgment, dkt. no. 86,
along with a Civil L.R. Rule 7(h) expedited, non-dispositive motion to restrict
document, dkt. no. 85. The motion to restrict explains that the plaintiff’s claim
involves denial of access to medical care, which meant they were required to
attach portions of the plaintiff’s medical records as exhibits in support of their
motion for summary judgement. Docket No. 85 at ¶¶1-3. According to the
defendants, the exhibits (along with the proposed findings of fact and the brief
in support of the motion for summary judgment) may contain the plaintiff’s
protected medical information, which under HIPAA should not be accessible to
the public. Id. at ¶¶4-7.
“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 Specht, 622
1

F.3d 698, 701 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d
544 (7th Cir. 2002)). “HIPAA did not give rise to a physician-patient medical
records privilege . . . [but] it did . . . create a procedure for obtaining authority
to use medical records in litigation.” United States v. Bek, 493 F.3d 790, 802
(7th Cir. 2007). A protective order is one method to protect patient information
during litigation, see id.; a motion to restrict document is another method. See
Citizens First Nat’l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 944
(7th Cir. 1999); see also Gen. L. R. 79(d) (E.D. Wis.).
The plaintiff has not objected to the motion to restrict, and the court
believes there is good cause to grant the motion to protect the plaintiff’s
medical information. See Young v. Blozinski, No. 18-C-39, 2018 WL 4964612,
at *3 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 15, 2018). The court will grant the motion.
The court GRANTS the defendants’ Rule 7(h) expedited non-dispositive
motion to restrict document. Dkt. No. 85.
The court ORDERS that the clerk’s office shall RESTRICT dkt. nos. 87,
88 through 88-27 and 89 to case participants only.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 18th day of January, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge

2