Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 17, 2019

Nahal v. Allina Health System

Judge
Donovan Frank
Docket
0:18-cv-00631
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Nahal v. Allina, Magistrate Judge Menendez issued a protective order covering Nahal’s medical information in anticipated summary-judgment filings.

Who this affects

Armon Nahal’s medical information and Allina Health System’s use and filing of that information in this case were affected. The order also governs people who may receive the information under the referenced protective-order terms.

What happened

Nahal v. Allina Health System concerns Armon Nahal’s employment-related Americans with Disabilities Act claims against Allina. Nahal was representing himself and had produced medical information during discovery.

The court found good cause for protection because Allina was expected to rely on some of that medical information in a coming summary-judgment motion. The order required Allina to treat the information as confidential, use it only in this case, and disclose it only to specified people.

Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez also required Allina to treat medical information supporting a dispositive motion as confidential under the District of Minnesota’s filing rules, which could require temporary sealing. The order did not decide the underlying disability-discrimination claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Nahal v. Allina Health System · No. 0:18-cv-00631
Judge
Donovan Frank
Date
Apr. 17, 2019

Background

Armon Nahal asserted, among other claims, that Allina Health System violated the Americans with Disabilities Act in connection with his employment and eventual termination. The opinion states that Nahal was a non-lawyer litigating the case. During discovery, he produced a substantial amount of his own medical information to Allina.

The case did not have a blanket protective order—the usual order allowing parties to designate certain materials as confidential and restricting their use and disclosure. The court stated that there was no indication Allina or its lawyers had misused or distributed Nahal’s medical information. Allina was expected to file a motion for summary judgment within two months, and the court believed Allina would likely use information that should be treated as confidential in support of that motion.

Order

The court entered a protective order concerning the electronic filing of information related to Allina’s anticipated summary-judgment motion. It found good cause to require Allina to treat Nahal’s medical information as though it had been designated confidential under the District of Minnesota’s form protective-order stipulation.

The order required that the confidential medical records be used only in this action and disclosed only to the people listed in paragraph 3 of the referenced form stipulation. It also required Allina to treat information about Nahal’s current or past medical condition as confidential information under District of Minnesota Local Rule 5.6(c) if Allina relied on that information in support of any dispositive motion, including the anticipated summary-judgment motion. The opinion stated that this could require temporary filing under seal under Local Rule 5.6(d).

Effect and Classification

This was a discovery and filing-protection order. It protected specified medical information but did not decide whether Allina violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, whether summary judgment should be granted, or the ultimate merits of Nahal’s claims. Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.