The Estate of Laliah Swayzer et al v. Clarke et al

Filing 418

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 10/8/2019. Defendant Armor Correctional to amend its motion to restrict (dkt. no. 352) to include facts demonstrating good cause. (cc: all counsel)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
THE ESTATE OF LALIAH SWAYZER, et al,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-cv-1703-pp

DAVID A. CLARKE, JR., et al.,
Defendant.
ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT ARMOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH
SERVICES, INC. TO AMEND ITS MOTION TO RESTRICT DOCUMENTS
(DKT. NO. 352)
On August 19, 2019, Defendant Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc.
filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 349. In support of that motion,
Armor filed two declarations: one by Kayla McCullough, dkt. no. 358, and one
by Emery K. Harlan, dkt. no. 367. The defendant attached several exhibits to
each declaration, many of which consist solely of excerpts from deposition
transcripts. Armor moved to restrict some of these exhibits on the grounds that
they either are subject to the protective order (dkt. no. 44) or that they “contain
Plaintiff Shade Swazyer’s medical records.” Dkt. No. 352.
“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
F.3d 698, 701 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories,
297 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2002)). The parties’ interest in exchanging documents
privately does not trump the requirement that a judge must determine whether
there is good cause to seal a document filed on the public record. See, e.g.,
Citizens First Nat. Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943 (7th

1

Cir. 1999); Baxter, 297 F.3d 698; Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d
562, 568 (7th Cir. 2000) (collecting cases). General Local Rule 79(d)(3) (E.D.
Wis.) requires that “[a]ny motion to seal must be supported by sufficient facts
demonstrating good cause for withholding the document or material from the
public record.”
Armor’s motion does not provide facts explaining why the exhibits to the
declarations should be restricted. Armor says only that either (1) Armor
previously marked these documents as “CONFIDENTIAL,” or (2) the documents
contain plaintiff’s medical records. A cursory review shows that most of the
documents are excerpts from deposition transcripts, not medical records, so it
appears that Armor asks that most of the documents be restricted because
they have been designated confidential under the protective order. That isn’t
enough. Armor must do more than simply assert that it has “good cause to
maintain the confidential nature of the documents at issue.” Dkt. No. 352 at
¶6. Armor must provide facts showing good cause for restricting the documents
from public view, beyond the fact that the parties have agreed to exchange
them under cover of a protective order.
The court ORDERS defendant Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc.
to amend its motion to restrict, dkt. no. 352, to include facts demonstrating
good cause.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 8th day of October, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge

2