Kasso v. City of Minneapolis
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:23-cv-02782
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Kasso v. City of Minneapolis, Judge Leung denied Leila Kasso’s request to unseal documents and kept seven docket entries sealed.
Leila Kasso, the City of Minneapolis, the City of Minneapolis Police Department, and people whose medical information appears in the sealed documents.
What happened
In Kasso v. City of Minneapolis, Leila Kasso, representing herself, asked the court to oppose or lift the sealing of documents. She said the documents should be public, except that Social Security numbers should be redacted.
The court treated her filing as a request for further consideration under a local court rule. Although she did not follow several filing requirements, the court reviewed the sealing issue. It concluded that the documents contained highly private and sensitive medical information, and that protecting this information outweighed the public’s general right to inspect court records.
The court denied Kasso’s request and ordered that docket numbers 75, 75-1, 75-2, 75-3, 75-4, 75-5, and 75-6 remain sealed. Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung also continued the prior consistent orders and warned that violations could lead to sanctions or other remedies.
The detailed version
- Kasso v. City of Minneapolis · No. 0:23-cv-02782
- Katherine Menendez
- Oct. 31, 2024
Background
Leila Kasso sued the City of Minneapolis and the City of Minneapolis Police Department, alleging employment discrimination. She represented herself. The defendants previously asked the court to keep seven documents sealed, citing information about an employee’s medical condition and allegations of employee misconduct that did not result in final discipline. The court granted that request, while allowing a deadline for a party to seek further consideration.
Kasso then filed a document titled “First MOTION to Lift Stay on Permanent Seal of all Documents and Records.” She stated that the documents were public, requested redaction only of Social Security numbers, and indicated that she would seal medical documents she obtained that concerned other people.
Court’s analysis
The court liberally construed Kasso’s filing as a motion for further consideration under Local Rule 5.6(f). That rule makes such a motion a nondispositive motion governed by Local Rule 7.1(b). The court found that Kasso had not met several procedural requirements, including providing a notice of hearing and a meaningful meet-and-confer statement. It stated that it could deny the motion on that basis.
The court nevertheless considered the merits. It recognized a common-law right of public access to judicial records but explained that the right is not absolute. Courts must balance the public’s interest in access against the interests served by confidentiality. The court stated that personal health information generally warrants sealing.
The court independently reviewed the seven sealed documents. It found that the redacted portions of each contained information about a person’s medical condition and determined that the information was highly private and sensitive. The court concluded that the interest in keeping those medical details confidential outweighed the common-law right of access. Because that conclusion resolved the sealing issue, the court did not address whether allegations of employee misconduct without final discipline should also remain confidential.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung denied Kasso’s Request in Opposition of Sealing Documents, ECF No. 104. The court ordered that docket numbers 75, 75-1, 75-2, 75-3, 75-4, 75-5, and 75-6 remain sealed. It also stated that prior consistent orders remained in effect and that violations could result in appropriate remedies, including costs, fines, attorney fees, evidentiary restrictions, striking of pleadings, dismissal with prejudice, or default judgment.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.