Woodruff v. Ohio Department of Transportation

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

KENNY WOODRUFF, Case No. 1:18-cv-853 Plaintiff, Cole, J. Litkovitz, M.J.

vs.

OHIO DEPARTMENT ORDER OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on the unopposed motion of defendant Ohio Department of Transportation (“ODOT”) for leave to file under seal for the Court’s and counsel’s “eyes only” certain unredacted documents that are subject to the Protective Order in effect in this litigation (Doc. 18); or, alternatively, to file redacted copies of the documents on the public docket in order to protect the confidentiality of the non-parties about whom the documents relate. (Doc. 53). For good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED. These documents contain confidential drug test information of a current ODOT employee (identified as “Individual A”) and a former ODOT employee (identified as “Individual B”), who are not personally involved in this lawsuit but whose Drug Test Materials are relevant to plaintiff’s claims and ODOT’s defenses. As has been addressed earlier in this litigation relative to discovery of these materials, this information is statutorily required to be maintained confidential. Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to grant this request and to continue to maintain the confidentiality of the Drug Test Materials to comply with the applicable federal Department of Transportation regulations and to protect the confidentiality and privacy interests of Individuals A and B. See Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016). Therefore, defendant is DIRECTED to electronically file redacted copies of the documents on the public docket and also to electronically file sealed copies of the unredacted versions in accordance with S.D. of Ohio Civ. R. 5.2.1(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:__10/14/2020 Horan Athen Karen L. Litkovitz, Magistrate Judg United States District Court