1:21-cv-00039
W.D. Ky.Oct 13, 2022Background
- Select Rehabilitation sued multiple former employees and EmpowerMe for alleged trade secret misappropriation and sought a temporary restraining order; the Court denied the TRO after a hearing.
- Select moved for leave to redact its TRO-hearing transcript, identifying 18 instances of personal health information (PHI), one personal email address, and five instances of alleged proprietary/confidential information or trade secrets.
- Defendants agreed or did not object to redacting the PHI instances and the email address but opposed redaction of the purported trade secrets/confidential business information.
- The Court applied the Sixth Circuit three-part test for overcoming the presumption of public access (compelling interest; outweighs public interest; narrowly tailored), as articulated in Kondash and Shane Group, and acknowledged HIPAA protections for PHI.
- The Court granted redaction of the 18 PHI references and the single email address as narrowly tailored and outweighing public access interests.
- The Court denied redaction of the alleged proprietary/trade-secret material, finding Select failed to show a compelling interest; the Protective Order did not permit sealing of hearing testimony or exhibits admitted at the TRO hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PHI and a personal email in the transcript should be redacted | PHI and personal contact info implicate privacy/HIPAA and warrant redaction; requests are narrowly tailored | Defendants concurred or did not object to these redactions | Granted: 18 PHI instances and one email may be redacted as narrowly tailored and outweighing public access |
| Whether alleged proprietary/confidential business information/trade secrets should be redacted | Disclosure could harm competitive standing; information relates to operations, staffing, pay rates, forms | Defendants opposed; public access presumption applies and Select chose public forum | Denied: Select failed to show a compelling interest; public access outweighs harm; mere reputational/competitive harm insufficient |
| Whether the stipulated Protective Order covers testimony/documents introduced at the TRO hearing | Protective Order classifies certain materials as Confidential and argues sealing authority follows Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G) | Defendants: Protective Order does not alter public access to hearing records; sealing requires three-part showing | Denied as a basis for redaction: the Protective Order applies to discovery materials, not to materials admitted at the hearing; sealing governed by three-part public-access test |
Key Cases Cited
- Rudd Equip. Co. v. John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co., 834 F.3d 589 (6th Cir. 2016) (articulating strong presumption of public access to court records)
- In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470 (6th Cir. 1983) (discussing public’s right to inspect judicial documents)
- Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165 (6th Cir. 1983) (public access presumption and limited exceptions for privacy/trade secrets)
- Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2016) (three-part test for sealing: compelling interest, outweighs public interest, narrowly tailored)
- Kondash v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., [citation="767 F. App'x 635"] (6th Cir. 2019) (applying the three-part sealing standard)
- Thomas v. 1156729 Ont. Inc., 979 F. Supp. 2d 780 (E.D. Mich. 2013) (discussing HIPAA-related privacy interests in sealing requests)