Konyukhova v. Walgreen Company

Background

Pro se Plaintiff Esmiralda Konyukhova filed a letter motion asking the Court to seal several docket entries and to require the defendants to redact medical and health-related information about her and her family from future filings or file those materials under seal. The Court previously denied that motion without prejudice and directed Konyukhova to identify specific pages and propose specific redactions. Konyukhova then submitted proposed redactions concerning her Complaint, amended complaints, and memoranda filed in support of motions by Walgreen Company d/b/a Walgreens and Sedgwick Claims Management Services Inc.

The request concerned documents that had already been filed publicly, including pleadings and memoranda supporting motions to dismiss. Konyukhova also asked the Court to direct Sedgwick to redact the term “still-born” from two recent filings and to refrain from using that term in future submissions.

Reasoning

The Court applied the public-access framework from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. Under that framework, the Court first decides whether the material is a “judicial document,” then determines the strength of the public-access presumption, and finally weighs interests favoring restricted access. A party seeking to overcome that presumption must identify a likely specific harm rather than rely on general privacy concerns.

The Court held that the pleadings and motion memoranda were judicial documents because they concerned the Court’s adjudicatory function. It gave the documents a strong presumption of public access. The Court recognized Konyukhova’s and her family’s privacy interests but found that those interests were weakened because the complete documents had been publicly available for months, and in some instances for more than a year. The Court also noted that the information Konyukhova sought to redact from Sedgwick’s recently filed documents appeared in other documents that had already been publicly available.

The Court identified two additional, independent grounds for denying the redaction requests. First, it found that Konyukhova had waited too long to seek sealing or redaction. Second, it found that she had waived the right to request the redactions because her former counsel had publicly filed the information, and counsel’s actions were binding on her.

Regarding the term “still-born,” the Court explained that the term is sometimes used to argue that a legal claim lacks a valid foundation and has also been used by courts. It found no legal basis to redact the term from Sedgwick’s filings or to prohibit Sedgwick from using it in future submissions.

Disposition

The Court denied all of Konyukhova’s requests for redaction. It also denied her request concerning Sedgwick’s use of the term “still-born.” The order did not state that either denial was with or without prejudice.