Evans v. Krook

Background

The court considered the parties’ Joint Motion for Continued Sealing under District of Minnesota Local Rule 5.6. The motion concerned documents filed under seal in connection with Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants’ motion to exclude Dr. Justin King’s testimony, and Defendants’ motion to exclude testimony from Minnesota experts Jeffrey Noble, Stuart Robinson, and Derrick Hacker.

The parties agreed, or did not object, to continued sealing of Docket Entries 235, 247, 256, 258, 260, 261, 263, 265, and 266. They said the documents contained confidential medical information under Minnesota statutes, a birth date, and information designated confidential under the case’s protective order. Redacted versions of several entries had already been filed.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a confidentiality designation under a protective order, by itself, is not enough to keep a document sealed indefinitely. After reviewing the documents and considering the parties’ representations and agreement, the court concluded that the need to protect the information in Docket Entries 235, 247, 256, 260, 261, 263, 265, and 266 outweighed the public’s right to access those documents.

For Docket Entry 258, the court applied the general right of public access to judicial records. It found that the previously filed redacted copy, Docket Entry 259, concealed portions of the document that were referenced in an unsealed memorandum of law and order. The court determined that only the date of birth should be redacted.

Disposition

The court GRANTED the parties’ Joint Motion for Continued Sealing. Docket Entries 235, 247, 256, 260, 261, 263, 265, and 266 will remain SEALED. Docket Entry 258 will remain SEALED, but the parties were ordered to file a renewed redacted version by August 1, 2023, with only the date of birth redacted.