Raj Plastic Surgery LLC v. Raj

• Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
• Decided: July 14, 2020
• Docket: 1:20-cv-00751
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ------------------------------------------------------- : : RAJ PLASTIC SURGERY, LLC, : Case No. 1:20-CV-00751 : Plaintiffs, : : vs. : OPINION & ORDER : [Resolving Doc No. 14] KELLY RAJ, . : : Defendants. : -------------------------------------------------------

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

On June 18, 2020, Defendant Kelly Raj moved to strike portions of the Complaint or seal Exhibit G.1 Plaintiffs opposed.2 With their opposition brief, Plaintiffs filed Exhibit 6, a document from Plaintiff Joyesh Raj and Defendant’s state-court divorce proceeding. Defendant Kelly Raj now seeks to strike or seal the opposition brief’s Exhibit 6.3 Defendant argues that the divorce-proceeding filing contains “highly sensitive personal identifying information.”4 There is a “strong presumption in favor of openness” of court records.5 “Only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.”6 The burden of overcoming that presumption is borne by the party that seeks to seal the records.7 This party must show that “disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury.”8 Only

1 Doc. 10. 2 Doc. 13. 3 Doc. 14. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Doc. 15. Defendant replied. Doc. 16. 4 Doc. 14 at 1. 5 , 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing , 710 F.2d 1165, 1179 (6th Cir. 1983)). 6 (citing , 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983)). 7 “‘trade secrets, information covered by a recognized privilege . . . and information required by statute to be maintained in confidence . . .’ is typically enough to overcome the presumption of access.”9 Defendant has not met the requisite burden to justify the Court’s sealing or striking Exhibit 6 to the opposition brief. However, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 requires

redaction of individuals’ birth dates and the names of minors in electronic court filings. Therefore, the names and birth dates of Plaintiff Joyesh Raj and Defendant Kelly Raj’s minor children should be redacted. The Court will also require the redaction of Defendant Kelly Raj’s birth date. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to strike or seal Exhibit 6. Plaintiffs are ordered to refile the exhibit with the minors’ names and birth dates

of the children and Defendant redacted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14, 2020 JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9 at 308 (citing , 297 F.3d 544, 546 (7th Cir. 2002)). -2-