Lewis v. Warden, Dayton Correctional Institution, No. 2:2020cv03461 - Document 14 (S.D. Ohio 2020)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING AMENDED MOTION TO EXPAND THE RECORD AND TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 13 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 10/6/2020. (kpf)

Download PDF
Lewis v. Warden, Dayton Correctional Institution Doc. 14 Case: 2:20-cv-03461-MHW-MRM Doc #: 14 Filed: 10/07/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 365 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION AT COLUMBUS JASMINE D. LEWIS, Petitioner, : - vs - Case No. 2:20-cv-3461 District Judge Michael H. Watson Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz SHELBIE SMITH, Warden, Dayton Correctional Institution, : Respondent. DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING AMENDED MOTION TO EXPAND THE RECORD AND TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Amended Motion to Expand the Record and to File Documents Under Seal (ECF No. 13). With the consent of counsel for the Respondent, the record is expanded to include documents described as “1) Presentence Investigation Report, 2) 06/21/2017 “Confidential” Court’s Exhibit 1, and 3) 06/08/2017 Judgment Entry.” Id. at PageID 361. Petitioner has not submitted these three documents for in camera inspection, but represents that they contain material which is “confidential and sensitive information regarding Lewis.” Id. Under controlling Sixth Circuit authority, a District Court may not permit filing under seal without a determination of good cause as to each such document, even if the parties agree, to protect the public’s interest in transparency of court proceedings. Procter &Gamble Co.v. Bankers Trust Co., 78 F.3d 219 (6th Cir. 1996); Shane Group., Inc., v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case: 2:20-cv-03461-MHW-MRM Doc #: 14 Filed: 10/07/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 366 299, 306 (6th Cir. 2016)(Kethledge, J.). Accordingly, Petitioner may file the referenced documents under temporary seal and the Court will examine the documents to determine if their continued sealing is appropriate. If the Court determines that sealing is not appropriate, Petitioner will be given an opportunity to withdraw the documents to protect her privacy interests in them. October 6, 2020. s/ Michael R. Merz United States Magistrate Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.