Lin v. Drummond

• Court: District Court, N.D. Indiana
• Decided: May 23, 2023
• Docket: 4:20-cv-00097
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION AT LAFAYETTE

LIDAN LIN,

Plaintiff,

v. CAUSE NO.: 4:20-CV-97-TLS

CARL DRUMMOND, LACHLAN WHALEN, and PURDUE UNIVERSITY,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Making Confidential Two Documents [ECF No. 110], filed by Plaintiff Lidan Lin on May 19, 2023. In the motion, the Plaintiff asks the Court to order that two other documents [ECF Nos. 111, 112] also filed on May 19, 2022, be maintained under seal. Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 5-3 provides, “The clerk may not maintain a filing under seal unless authorized to do so by statute, court rule, or court order.” N.D. Ind. L.R. 5-3(a). “The public has a legitimate interest in the record compiled in a legal proceeding because the public pays for the courts,” but this interest may be overridden “if there is good cause for sealing part of the record.” Forst v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 602 F. Supp. 2d 960, 974 (E.D. Wis. 2009) (citing Citizens First Nat’l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 944–45 (7th Cir. 1999)). “Any step that withdraws an element of the judicial process from public view makes the ensuing decision look more like fiat and requires rigorous justification” by the Court. Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 348 (7th Cir. 2006). A litigant must justify the claim of secrecy, analyzing the applicable legal criteria. Citizens First, 178 F.3d at 945; see also, e.g., Cnty. Materials Corp. v. Allan Block Corp., 502 F.3d 730, 740 (7th Cir. 2007); Baxter Int’l v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 547 (7th Cir. 2002); Union Oil Co. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2000). The Plaintiff provides no cause for sealing the documents. “[T]he Seventh Circuit stated that it will deny outright any motion to maintain the confidentiality of information that fails to ‘analyze in detail, document by document, the propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal

citations.’” Forst, 602 F. Supp. 2d at 974 (quoting Baxter Int’l, Inc., 297 F.3d at 548). The Court finds it must do the same. Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby DENIES without prejudice the Plaintiff’s Motion for Making Confidential Two Documents [ECF No. 110]. The Court SETS a deadline of May 30, 2023, for the motion to be refiled. If the motion is not filed by the deadline, the Court will order both documents [ECF Nos. 111, 112] unsealed. SO ORDERED on May 23, 2023.

s/ Theresa L. Springmann JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT