DEPALMA v. KERNS

District Court, M.D. Georgia·Decided December 12, 2022·No. 5:22-cv-00091·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

RACHEL DEPALMA, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-cv-91 (MTT) ) SAMANTHA KERNS, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) __________________ )

ORDER Plaintiff Rachel DePalma moves the Court for an order that requires Defendants Samantha Kerns and Laurinda Kirk to file their dispositive and Daubert motions, along with all accompanying exhibits, under seal. Doc. 28. Kerns and Kirk responded in opposition but note at least some redactions are appropriate given the privacy concerns outlined by DePalma with respect to her medical history. Doc. 29 at 5. The public enjoys a qualified common law right of access to judicial proceedings. Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1310-13 (11th Cir. 2001). The right applies to all materials submitted “in connection with a substantive motion.” Id. at 1312-13. The Court must balance the interest of the parties and the public and may consider, among other factors, “whether allowing access would impair court functions or harm legitimate privacy interests, the degree of and likelihood of injury if made public, the reliability of the information, whether there will be an opportunity to respond to the information, whether the information concerns public officials or public concerns, and the availability of a less onerous alternative to sealing the documents.” Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007). Here, a less onerous alternative exists. To assuage DePalma’s privacy concerns, Kerns and Kirk shall file their dispositive and Daubert motions, along with all

accompanying exhibits, as “restricted to case participants only.” Once filed, the parties shall confer and jointly file within seven days a redacted version for the public docket. Should the parties see fit, the same procedure shall be followed for DePalma’s response and the defendants’ reply. Accordingly, DePalma’s motion to seal (Doc. 28) is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this 12th day of December, 2022. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

DEPALMA v. KERNS, (M.D. Ga. 2022).

DEPALMA v. KERNS (DEPALMA v. KERNS) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Michael D. Van Etten v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc
263 F.3d 1304 (Eleventh Circuit, 2001)
Juan Aquas Romero v. Drummond Co. Inc.
480 F.3d 1234 (Eleventh Circuit, 2007)