Dotson v. Faulkner

• Court: District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
• Decided: May 9, 2023
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01767
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

LANITA DOTSON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 20-CV-1767

JAMES FAULKNER, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

On April 7, 2023, the State defendants, Kalen Ruck and Amy Finke, filed a motion to seal Exhibit 1002 (ECF No. 77-1), because it contains confidential information related to the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) investigation that is relevant to this case. (ECF No. 76). “Documents that affect the disposition of federal litigation are presumptively open to public view, even if the litigants strong prefer secrecy, unless a statute, rule, or privilege justifies confidentiality.” In re Specht, 622 F.3d 697, 701 (7th Cir. 2010). Restricting documents is appropriate where “a plaintiff’s interest in privacy outweighs the probative value of the information contained in the records.” Mathhews v. Waukesha Cty, 2012 WL 695669 at *12 (E.D. Wis. March 1, 2012) (citing Doe v. Oberweis Dairy, 456 F.3d 704, 718 (7th Cir. 2006)). Here, given the sensitive nature of the report, and the fact that the parties already have a protective order in place governing the dissemination of materials like the report, the court find cause to grant the State Defendants’ motion. However, instead of sealing the exhibit, which would render it unavailable to everyone, including the parties, the court will restrict it to the parties’ counsel and relevant court personnel. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State Defendant’s motion to seal (ECF No. 76) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The court will not seal the exhibit, but instead will restrict it as described above.

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 9th day of May, 2023.

THE COUR

NANCY J United States Magistrate Judge