Ewalt v. Gatehouse Media Ohio Holdings II, Inc.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

JOHN EWALT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, et al.,

Case No. 2:19-cv-4262 Plaintiffs, Judge Michael H. Watson Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson v.

GATEHOUSE MEDIA OHIO HOLDING II, INC., d/b/a THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH,

Defendant.

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Maintain Redactions. (Doc. 288). Defendant seeks to permanently seal redacted material in a declaration with exhibits from Nikhil Hunshikatti. (Id.). The declaration was filed in support of both Defendant’s response to Plaintiff Wylie’s motion to remand and Defendant’s motion for relief from judgment. (Docs. 285, 286). The Court has reviewed the unredacted declaration with attached exhibits in camera. The redactions cover two types of information. The first type is confidential customer service scripts about calls to subscribers of The Columbus Dispatch who had a credit card payment declined. (Doc. 288). The Court previously allowed this type of customer service script to be sealed. (See, e.g., Doc. 128 at 5; Doc. 233 at 6–7; see also Doc. 110 at 13). Additionally, Defendant’s request is narrowly tailored, as parts of the script relevant to this lawsuit remain unredacted. (Doc. 288 at 2 (noting Defendant has not redacted “the portion of the scripts reflecting the premium-edition disclosure”)). The second type of redacted information is personal information of third parties. (Doc. 288 (noting the redacted third-party information includes names, email addresses, home addressees, phone numbers, and account numbers)). Again, the Court previously allowed this type of information to be sealed, noting the strong privacy interests of non-parties. (See, e.g., Doc. 128 at 3–4; Doc. 233 at 3; Doc. 265); see also Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 308 (6th Cir. 2016).

As the Court has explained, such redactions are narrowly tailored and adequately balance the compelling interest in sealing with the public’s interest in access. See Kondash v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 767 F. App’x 635, 637 (6th Cir. 2019) (citing Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 305). Accordingly, for the reasoning set forth in the Court’s prior orders, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Maintain Redactions. (Doc. 288). Defendant is ORDERED to file an unredacted version of the declaration with exhibits under seal within the next seven (7) days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: April 7, 2025 /s/Kimberly A. Jolson KIMBERLY A. JOLSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE