Opinion
Case Number: 0:11-cv-03701-SRN-TNL
12-18-2013
Kathleen Radcliffe, Plaintiff, v. Securian Financial Group, Inc., Defendant.
ORDER
The above-captioned matter came before the Court on Defendant Securian Financial Group, Inc.'s ("Securian's") Motion to Seal the Court Record [Doc. No. 66]. Citing the sensitivity of certain personnel and medical-related information contained in this action, Securian seeks to seal the entire Court file. (Mem. Supp. Mot. to Seal at 2 [Doc. No. 67].) Alternatively, Securian moves to seal the following specific docket entries: Doc. Nos. 1-1, 7, 12, 18, 22, 23, 36, 42, and 47. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant's motion. (Id. at 4.)
The Court has reviewed the specific docket entries identified by Securian. Because these specific documents contain sensitive information concerning personnel actions and medical history, they shall be sealed. The rest of the docketed entries in this matter, however, contain no such sensitive content sufficient to overcome the longstanding presumption of the public's right of access to the court. United States v. Rogers, 13-CR-130 (ADM/JJG), 2013 WL 5781597, at *1 (D. Minn. Aug. 15, 2013) (citing Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980); In re Search Warrant for Secretarial Area Outside Office of Gunn, 855 F.2d 569, 573 (8th Cir. 1988)). Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant's motion in part as it relates to Defendant's request to seal the entire Court file in this matter, and grants the motion in part, as it relates to the request to seal the specifically-identified docket entries.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Defendant Securian's Motion to Seal the Court Record [Doc. No. 66] is hereby GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part;
2. The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to seal the following Docket entries: Doc. Nos. 1-1, 7, 12, 18, 22, 23, 36, 42, and 47.
IT IS SO ORDERED:
BY THE COURT:
______________________
Susan Richard Nelson
United States District Judge