578 S.W.3d 50
Tenn. Ct. App.2018Background
- Case arises from an alleged sexual assault of a minor (John Doe); John Doe sued by his next friend Jane Doe and later voluntarily dismissed the complaint, leaving ancillary motions pending.
- The trial court had entered a blanket November 15, 2017 order placing all filings under seal pending in camera review; no individualized sealing findings were made at that time.
- This Court remanded for individualized findings because appellate rule requires specific trial-court determinations to justify sealing appellate filings.
- On remand the trial court ordered limited documents sealed but refused to seal portions of a February 5, 2018 order and a November 9, 2017 transcript that reference Jane Doe’s medical history, finding no "compelling reason" to seal because the passages were not verbatim medical records.
- Plaintiffs sought interlocutory review under Tenn. R. App. P. 9; this Court granted the application and reviewed whether those portions should be sealed.
- The Court held that medical information derived from confidential medical records retains confidentiality unless the patient places that medical history at issue; because Jane Doe’s medical history was not relevant to her claims and the court did not rely on it, sealing was required and narrowly tailored redactions appropriate. The Court also sealed an earlier unredacted public filing that inadvertently disclosed information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether portions of the Feb. 5, 2018 order and Nov. 9, 2017 transcript referencing Jane Doe’s medical history should be sealed | Jane Doe: medical history (and information derived from her medical records) is confidential, not at issue in her claims, and was not relied on by the court, so those portions should be sealed | Defendants: no compelling reason to seal because the material was discussion of medical information, not the medical records themselves; public access favored | Court reversed trial court: sealed the portions referencing Jane Doe’s medical history; confidentiality extends to information derived from medical records unless placed at issue or relied upon by the court |
| Whether inadvertent public disclosure in an earlier filing waives confidentiality | Jane Doe: the disclosure was inadvertent (typographical/oversight) and does not defeat confidentiality; amended public version corrected the error | Defendants: prior public filing disclosed the same medical history, undermining request to seal | Court: accepted inadvertent nature, placed original unredacted public filing under seal and ordered the amended redacted public version to be filed publicly |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589 (recognition of public right to inspect judicial records)
- Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299 (6th Cir.) (strong presumption of public access; sealing decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion but with heightened scrutiny)
- Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165 (6th Cir.) (public interest in obtaining information contained in court records)
- Givens v. Mullikin, 75 S.W.3d 383 (Tenn. 2002) (recognition of confidentiality protections for medical records)
- Stevens ex rel. Stevens v. Hickman Cmty. Health Care Servs., Inc., 418 S.W.3d 547 (Tenn.) (medical records remain confidential in litigation; disclosure limited to relevant records)
- McNiel v. Cooper, 241 S.W.3d 886 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (confidentiality of patient records protects the patient; confidentiality persists absent waiver or placing health at issue)