Barnett v. United States
This text of Barnett v. United States (Barnett v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
MAJOR SEAN BARNETT,
Plaintiff, : Case No. 3:25-cv-070
- vs - District Judge Thomas M. Rose Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
: Defendant. DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL CASE
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal the Case (ECF No. 15) which Defendants oppose in part (ECF No. 19). The Court finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied, at least as of yet, the requirements for sealing the entire case adopted by the Sixth Circuit. Shane Group., Inc., v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d 299, 306 (6th Cir. 2016)(Kethledge, J.). However, the Clerk recognized the sensitive nature of the documents attached to the proposed Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 16) and ordered access to it restricted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 5.2(e)(2). The Court finds there is good cause for that restriction and orders that it continue until further order of the Court. Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal is otherwise denied without prejudice to its renewal upon a showing of compliance with Shane Group. IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 11, 2025. s/ Michael R. Merz United States Magistrate Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Barnett v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnett-v-united-states-ohsd-2025.