Brenda Mitze v. Andrew Saul, 968 F.3d 689

Mitze applied for Social Security disability benefits in 2009; an ALJ denied benefits and the denial was affirmed by the district court and this Court (Mitze v. Colvin).
Years later Mitze moved to seal judicial opinions and court records that recited her medical history, citing harassment, solicitations, social stigma, and a burglary to steal prescribed pain medication.
The district court denied the motion: public access to dispositive orders is presumptive; electronic access to medical records was already limited under Rule 5.2(c) (with full access at the courthouse); redaction preferred over sealing; and the court lacked authority to compel news outlets to remove articles.
On appeal Mitze reiterated privacy and safety concerns and attached the published opinions and news articles reporting them.
The Seventh Circuit reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion, recognized the strong presumption of public access to dispositive opinions, and observed that requests to seal an appellate opinion must be made to the appellate court.
The Court also rejected Mitze’s arguments seeking removal of press articles and claiming HIPAA violations, and affirmed the district court’s denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to seal its order affirming the ALJ	Mitze: court opinions publicized her medical details causing harassment and danger; sealing needed to protect privacy and safety	District court: strong presumption favoring public access to dispositive orders; redaction preferred to sealing; Rule 5.2 already limits remote access to sensitive identifiers	Affirmed—no abuse of discretion; public-access presumption outweighs asserted harms
Whether the appellate opinion should be sealed	Mitze: appellate opinion also disclosed medical details and should be sealed	Defendant: only the appellate court can seal its opinions; same public-access principles apply	Denied; motion misdirected and would fail for same reasons if filed here
Whether courts can order news outlets to remove articles reporting on public records	Mitze: news articles publicized details and solicitors used them	Defendant: press may lawfully publish information from public court records	Denied—courts cannot compel removal of such articles (Nixon principle)
Whether disclosure by courts/press violated HIPAA	Mitze: publicization of medical details violates HIPAA	Defendant: HIPAA regulates health-care providers and affiliates, not courts or press; government agencies collecting benefit-eligibility info are excluded	Denied—HIPAA inapplicable to courts/press disclosures

County Materials Corp. v. Allan Block Corp., 502 F.3d 730 (7th Cir. 2007) (standard endorsing public access presumption for dispositive orders)
Hicklin Eng'g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 2006) (expressing preference for redaction over sealing)
Pepsico, Inc. v. Redmond, 46 F.3d 29 (7th Cir. 1995) (sealing opinions is disfavored even in sensitive contexts)
Mitze v. Colvin, 782 F.3d 879 (7th Cir. 2015) (prior appellate decision in plaintiff’s underlying benefits litigation)
Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisconsin, 112 F.3d 869 (7th Cir. 1997) (public’s right to know who uses the courts)
Doe v. City of Chicago, 360 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2004) (standard for proceeding anonymously requires outweighing public-interest harm)
Baxter Int'l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2002) (confidentiality appropriate only in very few categories)
Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (embarrassment or exposure to further litigation alone insufficient to justify sealing)
Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) (courts must review administrative records, including medical evidence, when reviewing ALJ decisions)
Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (press may publish information from public court records)
United States v. Bek, 493 F.3d 790 (7th Cir. 2007) (HIPAA’s regulatory scope does not cover government agencies collecting benefits-eligibility information)