Jimmy Lawrence Nance v. Susan Rudolph

S.D. Illinois

Jimmy Lawrence Nance v. Susan Rudolph

DecidedApril 30, 2026

Docket3:24-cv-01632

StatusUnknown

This text of Jimmy Lawrence Nance v. Susan Rudolph (Jimmy Lawrence Nance v. Susan Rudolph) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jimmy Lawrence Nance v. Susan Rudolph, (S.D. Ill. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JIMMY LAWRENCE NANCE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Civil No. 3:24-cv-1632-RJD ) SUSAN RUDOLPH, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

DALY, Magistrate Judge:1 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Seal Documents (Doc. 86). Defendant seeks to file under seal certain exhibits in support of her motion for summary judgment, the disclosure of which poses a potential safety and security risk. Those exhibits consist of photographs of the interior and exterior of prison cells, as well as incident reports regarding attempts to introduce contraband into the facility. Documents that are material to the disposition of “federal litigation are presumptively open to public view,” unless competing interests warrant secrecy. GEA Grp. AG v. Flex-N-Gate Corp., 740 F.3d 411, 420 (7th Cir. 2014). Here, Defendant has established that the content of the exhibits at issue may pose serious safety concerns to the facility. Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the filing of the exhibits under seal because Defendant has agreed to provide access to Plaintiff in accordance with the Protective Order that is already in place. (Doc. 58). Further, the public interests are not undermined by the filing of the exhibits under seal because Defendant has already provided declarations in support of the motion for summary judgment summarizing the content of the exhibits at issue. Thus, there is no superseding public interest in favor of disclosing the exhibits.

1 This matter has been assigned to the undersigned to conduct all proceedings, including the trial and final entry of Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 86) is GRANTED. Defendant is granted leave to file the incident reports and photographs in support of the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 84) under seal. The Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff’s access to the photographs and incident reports is subject to the same terms established in the June 12, 2025, Protective Order. (Doc. 58). If Plaintiff has an objection to the exhibits being subject to the Protective Order or to

their filing under seal, he may file a motion setting forth the grounds of his objection with specificity by May 14, 2026. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 30, 2026

s/ Reona J. Daly Hon. Reona J. Daly United States Magistrate Judge

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JIMMY LAWRENCE NANCE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Civil No. 3:24-cv-1632-RJD ) SUSAN RUDOLPH, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

DALY, Magistrate Judge:1 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Seal Documents (Doc. 86). Defendant seeks to file under seal certain exhibits in support of her motion for summary judgment, the disclosure of which poses a potential safety and security risk. Those exhibits consist of photographs of the interior and exterior of prison cells, as well as incident reports regarding attempts to introduce contraband into the facility. Documents that are material to the disposition of “federal litigation are presumptively open to public view,” unless competing interests warrant secrecy. GEA Grp. AG v. Flex-N-Gate Corp., 740 F.3d 411, 420 (7th Cir. 2014). Here, Defendant has established that the content of the exhibits at issue may pose serious safety concerns to the facility. Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the filing of the exhibits under seal because Defendant has agreed to provide access to Plaintiff in accordance with the Protective Order that is already in place. (Doc. 58). Further, the public interests are not undermined by the filing of the exhibits under seal because Defendant has already provided declarations in support of the motion for summary judgment summarizing the content of the exhibits at issue. Thus, there is no superseding public interest in favor of disclosing the exhibits.

1 This matter has been assigned to the undersigned to conduct all proceedings, including the trial and final entry of Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 86) is GRANTED. Defendant is granted leave to file the incident reports and photographs in support of the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 84) under seal. The Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff’s access to the photographs and incident reports is subject to the same terms established in the June 12, 2025, Protective Order. (Doc. 58). If Plaintiff has an objection to the exhibits being subject to the Protective Order or to

their filing under seal, he may file a motion setting forth the grounds of his objection with specificity by May 14, 2026. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 30, 2026

s/ Reona J. Daly Hon. Reona J. Daly United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jimmy Lawrence Nance v. Susan Rudolph, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimmy-lawrence-nance-v-susan-rudolph-ilsd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack