USDC IN/ND case 1:17-cv-00269-HAB document 48 filed 03/24/22 page 1 of 4
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`FORT WAYNE DIVISION
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`OPINION AND ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro se Motion to Seal her case, which the Court understands
`
`Cause No. 1:17-CV-269-HAB
`
`
`
`
`SUHA MIKHAIL,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to mean all records publicly accessible on the docket. (ECF No. 47).1 Plaintiff expresses that she
`
`would like the entire case sealed because she is “experiencing violations and disruptions in my
`
`life due [to] very personal and medical information being public.” While the Court understands
`
`Plaintiff’s concerns, Plaintiff has not overcome the strong presumption of public access to judicial
`
`documents. As a result, Plaintiff’s motions to seal the case is DENIED.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`
`
`There is a general principle favoring public access to federal court records, Nixon v.
`
`Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978), and it is only after balancing competing
`
`interests that a court may take the step of limiting such access. Indeed, “[w]hat happens in the
`
`federal courts is presumptively open to public scrutiny. Judges deliberate in private but issue public
`
`decisions after public arguments based on public records…Any step that withdraws an element of
`
`the judicial process from public view makes the ensuing decision look more like fiat and requires
`
`
`1Plaintiff filed suit alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under the ADA and the
`Rehabilitation Act. A clerk’s entry of judgment against the Plaintiff was entered in May 2019 and the case
`is closed.
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 1:17-cv-00269-HAB document 48 filed 03/24/22 page 2 of 4
`
`rigorous justification.” Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 348 (7th Cir. 2006). Even in
`
`cases involving substantial countervailing privacy interests such as state secrets, trade secrets, and
`
`attorney-client privilege, courts have refused requests to seal. Pepsico, Inc. v. Redmond, 46 F.3d
`
`29, 30 (7th Cir. 1995) (Easterbrook, J., in chambers) (noting that even in cases involving issues of
`
`national security, a “sealed opinion and order” is barely imaginable).
`
`
`
`Striking a balance between the public’s right to transparent court proceedings and a
`
`litigant’s personal privacy interests is complicated by cases that by their very nature reveal a
`
`litigant’s health and medical information. See Mitze v. Saul, 968 F.3d 689, 692 (7th Cir. 2020)
`
`(sympathizing with a disability claimant “who feels as though her medical information should not
`
`be publicized simply because she chooses to avail herself of her right to judicial review.”). But
`
`when a litigant brings a federal lawsuit they must expect at least some infringement on their
`
`personal privacy occasioned by the public nature of the proceedings. “Once a matter is brought
`
`before a court for resolution, it is no longer solely the parties’ case, but also the public’s
`
`case.” Brown v. Advantage Eng’g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992). In the context of
`
`disability discrimination claims, the medical basis of the claim is front and center and it is
`
`reasonable to expect such information to become public. Id. at 692-93 (“When unsuccessful
`
`applicants for disability benefits seek judicial review, they can expect (at least under today’s
`
`practices) that the medical basis of the claim will become public.”).
`
`
`
`That said, Plaintiff has not asked the Court to seal only portions of the case involving
`
`medical records or to redact her medical information; she is asking the Court to indiscriminately
`
`seal her entire case, even portions that do not disclose her medical information. Courts faced with
`
`these types of requests hold litigants to a high standard. See Brown, 960 F.2d at 1016 (unless a
`
`party can show “extraordinary circumstances” a court file must remain accessible to the public);
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 1:17-cv-00269-HAB document 48 filed 03/24/22 page 3 of 4
`
`Colony Ins. Co. v. Burke, 698 F.3d 1222, 1242 (10th Cir. 2012) (the proponent of a motion to
`
`seal “must articulate a real and substantial interest that justifies depriving the public of access
`
`to the records that inform our decision-making process.”); Bracken v. Fla. League of Cities,
`
`2019 WL 1867921, at *3 (D. Or. Apr. 24, 2019) (“Where the party seeks to seal case files in their
`
`entirety ... courts have required that party to meet the high threshold of showing that compelling
`
`reasons support the need for secrecy.”).
`
`Regardless of how the Court phrases the heightened threshold, Plaintiff has not met it here.
`
`Plaintiff has not provided anything more than a general concern that her medical and personal
`
`information is in the public record. This is not enough to sway the Court to seal the case given the
`
`strong presumption favoring public access and openness of the judiciary. Courts routinely deny
`
`requests to seal cases asserting similar concerns. Gonzales v. United States Post Off. of Shelbyville,
`
`Indiana, 2021 WL 4943067, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Apr. 19, 2021) (denying motion to seal case where
`
`plaintiff sought to avoid political harassment, retaliation, or humiliation); Abdul-Haqq v. Kaiser
`
`Found. Hosps., 2020 WL 4368235, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2020) (denying motion to seal closed
`
`case where plaintiff alleged third parties had posted public information on websites and threatened
`
`in text messages to send it to employers and houses of worship); Brez v. Fougera Pharms., Inc.,
`
`2018 WL 2248544, at *1 (D. Kan. Apr. 20, 2018) (denying request to seal closed case where
`
`plaintiff had difficulty finding new employment because the case is public record); Gravestock v.
`
`Tarpley Truck & Trailer Inc., 2017 WL 5441462, at *1 (D. Colo. Oct. 31, 2017) (denying request
`
`to seal case on the basis that the lawsuit “alleged conduct of a highly personal, sensitive,
`
`scandalous, and prurient nature” and would “ diminish the public reputation and professional
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 1:17-cv-00269-HAB document 48 filed 03/24/22 page 4 of 4
`
`standing of the parties”). For these reasons, then, Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal her case is DENIED.2
`
`(ECF No. 47).
`
`SO ORDERED on March 24, 2022.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Holly A. Brady__________________________
`JUDGE HOLLY A. BRADY
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 The Court also notes that Plaintiff failed to request that any filings be sealed when they were proffered
`during the litigation. The belated nature of Plaintiff's request serves as still another ground to deny it.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`