Chambliss v. Entergy Corporation

E.D. Louisiana

Chambliss v. Entergy Corporation

DecidedSeptember 6, 2023

Docket2:22-cv-02488

StatusUnknown

This text of Chambliss v. Entergy Corporation (Chambliss v. Entergy Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chambliss v. Entergy Corporation, (E.D. La. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JESSIE CHAMBLISS * CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS * NO. 22-2488

ENTERGY CORPORATION * DIVISION 2

ORDER AND REASONS

Pending before me is Defendant Entergy Operations, Inc.’s Motion to Seal Certain Exhibits (ECF No. 29) attached to its Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28). Defendant asserts that portions of Exhibits A, B, and G contain Plaintiff’s protected medical information and confidential information subject to this Court’s protective order. ECF No. 29 at 1. Defendant’s motion fails to comply with Local Rule 5.6 and Fifth Circuit precedent regarding the sealing of documents filed in the public record. Considering the record, the submissions, and the applicable law, Entergy’s Motion to Seal Certain Exhibits is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The standard for placing a document under seal is different from the standard governing whether unfiled discovery should be kept confidential.1 Because the sealing of judicial records is the exception rather than the norm, court must be ungenerous with their discretion to seal judicial records.2 A document may be sealed only after a line-by-line analysis and assessment of whether sealing the documents (or portions thereof) is appropriate. Through its motion, Defendant seeks to seal entire documents. It has not articulated a legitimate basis for sealing entire documents or even specific portions of the exhibits. Entergy may re-file its Motion to Seal, providing both a redacted and an unredacted version of the exhibits at issue along with a Memorandum outlining the bases for redacting portions and/or sealing entire

1 Bin Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 419 (5th Cir. 2021). 2 Id. at 417-19 (citations omitted); June Medical Services, L.L.C. v. Phillips, 22 F.4th 512, 519-21 (5th Cir. 2022). documents. At that point, the Court will be in a position to assess and determine whether the documents (or parts thereof) should be filed in under seal. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Seal Certain Exhibits (ECF No. 29) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to its right to re-file same in compliance with Local Rule 5.6 and Fifth Circuit precedent, as stated herein. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 6th day of September, 2023.

on 7 Mull CURRAULT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JESSIE CHAMBLISS * CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS * NO. 22-2488

ENTERGY CORPORATION * DIVISION 2

ORDER AND REASONS

Pending before me is Defendant Entergy Operations, Inc.’s Motion to Seal Certain Exhibits (ECF No. 29) attached to its Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28). Defendant asserts that portions of Exhibits A, B, and G contain Plaintiff’s protected medical information and confidential information subject to this Court’s protective order. ECF No. 29 at 1. Defendant’s motion fails to comply with Local Rule 5.6 and Fifth Circuit precedent regarding the sealing of documents filed in the public record. Considering the record, the submissions, and the applicable law, Entergy’s Motion to Seal Certain Exhibits is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The standard for placing a document under seal is different from the standard governing whether unfiled discovery should be kept confidential.1 Because the sealing of judicial records is the exception rather than the norm, court must be ungenerous with their discretion to seal judicial records.2 A document may be sealed only after a line-by-line analysis and assessment of whether sealing the documents (or portions thereof) is appropriate. Through its motion, Defendant seeks to seal entire documents. It has not articulated a legitimate basis for sealing entire documents or even specific portions of the exhibits. Entergy may re-file its Motion to Seal, providing both a redacted and an unredacted version of the exhibits at issue along with a Memorandum outlining the bases for redacting portions and/or sealing entire

1 Bin Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 419 (5th Cir. 2021). 2 Id. at 417-19 (citations omitted); June Medical Services, L.L.C. v. Phillips, 22 F.4th 512, 519-21 (5th Cir. 2022). documents. At that point, the Court will be in a position to assess and determine whether the documents (or parts thereof) should be filed in under seal. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Seal Certain Exhibits (ECF No. 29) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to its right to re-file same in compliance with Local Rule 5.6 and Fifth Circuit precedent, as stated herein. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 6th day of September, 2023.

on 7 Mull CURRAULT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Chambliss v. Entergy Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chambliss-v-entergy-corporation-laed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack