Simpson, Willie v. Walker, Scott et al

Filing 36

ORDER that plaintiff Willie Simpson may have until June 20, 2014 to submit supplemental briefing on his "motion to seal medical records," dkt. 33 . Defendants may have until June 27, 2014 to file their response. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 6/6/2014. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

WILLIE SIMPSON,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
13-cv-776-bbc
v.
SARA MASON, DIANE ESSER,
SHAWN GALLINGER, C.O. GODFREY,
TRAVIS PARR, SGT. PRIMMER,
CAPTAIN FLANNERY, GARY BOUGHTON
and JOHN DOE GUARDS,
Defendants.

In this case, plaintiff Willie Simpson is proceeding on claims that defendant prison
officials assaulted him and continue to threaten to kill him. Now before the court is a motion
by plaintiff asking the court to “seal [his] medical records in this case.” Dkt. 33. Defendants
state that they do not oppose the motion, and that if permitted by the court, they will file under
seal any medical records they file with the court. Dkt. 35.
I’m not ready to rule on this motion because I’m not sure what plaintiff is really asking
the court to do. Perhaps he is just asking what defendants understand him to be asking: for the
court to order his medical records to be sealed as they are submitted the court. But plaintiff does
not explain what medical records he thinks will be submitted or how they might pertain to his
claims. In addition, plaintiff states that he has a “right to privilege” under the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act and that the Wisconsin Department of Corrections has
“adopted the HIPAA privacy rule.” Although this is unclear, it sounds like plaintiff might have
concerns about the discovery process itself and how and to whom defendants might disclose his

1

medical information. Moreover, the court is aware that the state usually asks for authorization
from a prisoner before obtaining his medical file, but it is unclear whether plaintiff is attempting
to raise any authorization issues in his motion or seek a protective order clarifying how
defendants may use this information.
Because plaintiff’s motion is vague, before I rule on it, I will ask plaintiff to supplement
his motion with an explanation of his concerns, detailing what records he is talking about, the
specific worries he has (whether that has to do with the records being viewed or disclosed by
defendants or their submission to the court) and what specific steps he would like the court to
take. I will give defendants a chance to respond.
In addition, although I understand plaintiff’s wish for his medical records to stay as
private as possible, it may not reasonable for a district court to seal in a blanket fashion any and
all medical records it receives. See Doe v. Oberweis Dairy, 456 F.3d 704, 718 (7th Cir. 2006)
(court may seal medical records and limit their use in trial to extent that plaintiff's interest in
privacy outweighs probative value of information contained in records); Baxter Int'l, Inc. v. Abbott
Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002) (“[T]hose documents, usually a small subset of all
discovery, that influence or underpin the judicial decision are open to public inspection unless
they meet the definition of trade secrets or other categories of bona fide long-term
confidentiality.”). In submitting their supplemental briefing, the parties should address these
standards.

2

ORDER
It is ORDERED that plaintiff Willie Simpson may have until June 20, 2014 to submit
supplemental briefing on his “motion to seal medical records,” dkt. 33. Defendants may have
until June 27, 2014 to file their response.

Entered this 6th day of June, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge

3