Opinion
Civil Action CV-18-426 CV-18-502
02-28-2020
CONCORD GENERAL MUTUAL INSURANCE CO, Plaintiff v. MICHAEL GRINDEL, as Personal Representative of the Estate of COLLETTE BOURE, et al. Defendants MICHAEL GRINDEL, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of COLLETTE BOURE, Plaintiff, v. 21st CENTURY PREMIER INSURANCE CO, Defendant
Concord General-Matthew Mehalic, Esq. Michael A Grindel as PR of Estate-Peter Clifford Esq Alexander Meyers-Pro Se 21st Century-Jonathan Hunter, Esq. / David King, Esq.
Concord General-Matthew Mehalic, Esq.
Michael A Grindel as PR of Estate-Peter Clifford Esq
Alexander Meyers-Pro Se
21st Century-Jonathan Hunter, Esq. / David King, Esq.
ORDER
Thomas D. Warren Justice
In submitting its opposition to the motion for partial summary judgment by Concord General Mutual Insurance Co. in CV-18-426, the Estate of Collette Boure has filed certain psychological and school records of Collette Boure as Exhibits B through G to the affidavit of Michael Grindei. The Estate has filed a motion to seal those records.
As far as the court can tell, Exhibit G is designated as Collette Boure's birth certificate but no copy of that document is actually contained in the Exhibits to the Grindel Affidavit that were filed with the court.
Counsel for Concord was provided with the records in question, and has not objected to the motion to seal.
However, the court is not prepared to seal the documents in question. The Estate relies on those exhibits in opposing the motion for summary judgment. The Estate's Statement of Additional Material Facts dated September 19, 2019 cites repeatedly to the Grindel Affidavit. E.g., Estate SAMF ¶¶ 13, 15, 16, 33, 34. Grindel is not an expert qualified to offer opinions as to his daughter's mental health but he makes various assertions as to her mental health, citing to the exhibits in question. The court has discussed those exhibits in ruling on the motion.
Court proceedings are presumptively open to the public, and with the exception of discovery materials, that presumption applies to pretrial motions as well as hearings and trials. This is particularly true of documents on which the court relies in determining litigants' substantive rights. FTC v. Standard Financial Management, 830 F.2d 404, 408 & n.4 (1st Cir 1987). 'The principle that court proceedings are open to the public is a fundamental tenet of our judicial system, protected by both the common law and the First Amendment. See, e.g., Nixon v. Warner Communications, 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d 110, 119-21 (2d Cir. 2006) (strong presumption of public access applies to documents submitted to a court for consideration in a summary judgment motion); FTC v. Standard Financial Management, 830 F.2d at 408; Publicker Industries v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1066 (3d Cir. 1984), The court does not believe that it should make decisions on a secret record or a record from which material portions have been withheld from public access unless a party seeking confidentiality can demonstrate strong countervailing interests, such as the need to protect trade secrets.
Private medical information is often entitled to confidentiality, particularly where the specific information in question is not relied on by the parties or the court and has not been put in issue in the litigation. In this case, however, the individual whose privacy interests are at stake is deceased. Moreover, the Estate has put Collette's psychological diagnoses and her mental health records in issue by asserting that she was mentally ill, by relying on those records to support that assertion, and by arguing that her mental health problems create factual issues that preclude summary judgment. Although the court has ruled against the Estate on that issue, it cannot see a continued justification to sea! the records on which the Estate has relied in opposing Concord's motion.
There are two exceptions to this ruling. Those exceptions are Exhibits E and F to the Grindel Affidavit, records which relate to a suicide attempt and subsequent hospitalization in 2015, The fact that those events occurred is independently established in the record, and the specific details of those events have not been relied upon by the parties or by the court in connection with the pending motion, The Estate's motion to seal is therefore granted as to Inhibits E and F, The court is uncertain is to the extent to which the privacy rights of Collette Boure may be asserted after her death, so this ruling is without prejudice to reconsideration in the event of a request for access to those Exhibits.
The entry shall be:
The motion to seal by defendant Grindel in CV-18-426 is denied except as to Exhibits E and F to the Grindel Affidavit. Those two documents shall be scaled pending further order of the court. The clerk is directed to incorporate this order in the docket by reference pursuant to Rule 79(a).