CUTURILO v. JEFFERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, No. 2:2010cv01723 - Document 42 (W.D. Pa. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER DENYING 41 Motion to Seal Case, or, alternatively, to either Seal Certain Documents or Redact Certain Documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 02/23/2012. (cms)

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SHERIE CUTURILO, Plaintiff, v. JEFFERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 10-1723 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Mitchell, J. Presently before the Court is the Parties Amended Joint Motion to Seal the Case, or, alternatively, to either Seal Certain Documents or Redact Certain Documents (Doc. # 41). For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied. Plaintiff, Sherie Cuturilo ( Cuturilo ) against Jefferson Regional Medical Center, filed suit ( defendant ), her former employer, on December 22, 2010 alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 54( FMLA ) and a state law slander action. 29 U.S.C. § 2601- After being advised by the parties that a settlement had been reached in the matter, the Court administratively closed the case on December 7, 2011. On January 10, 2012, the parties filed a joint motion to seal the case. The Court denied the motion, explaining that the 1 parties had not identified sufficient cause to justify sealing the case, but afforded them the opportunity to file an amended motion (Doc. # 37). amended joint On February 7, 2012, the parties filed an motion to seal the case, or, in the first alternative, to seal certain case documents, or, in the second alternative, to redact specified case documents. There is a presumption of access to judicial records. In re Cendant Corporation, 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001). A party seeking to override the right to public access: bears the burden of showing that the material is the kind of information that courts will protect and that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure. Miller v. Indiana Hospital, 16 F.3d 549, 551 (3d Cir. 1994). In delineating the injury to be prevented, specificity is essential. Broad allegations of harm, bereft of specific examples or articulated reasoning, are insufficient. As is often the case when there are conflicting interests, a balancing process is contemplated. [T]he strong common law presumption of access must be balanced against the factors militating against access. The burden is on the party who seeks to overcome the presumption of access to show that the interest in secrecy outweighs the presumption. In re Cendant, 260 F.3d at 194 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Cuturilo contends that 2 public disclosure of her medical information health-related and claim the against fact her that former she filed employer a medical will likely have a chilling effect on her ability to find new employment. She also claims that she will possibly suffer great embarrassment if the public can access her medical information. Cuturilo has not established that her need for secrecy outweighs the presumption in favor of access. she cites supporting sealing involved First, the cases matters where the specified case documents included actual medical records, see Eugene S. v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, 663 F.3d 1124, 1136 (10th Cir. 2011), In re Zyprexa Injunction, 474 F. Supp. 2d 385, 394 (E.D.N.Y. 2007), and Abbey v. Hawaii Employers Mutual Insurance Company (HEMIC), 760 F.Supp. 2d 1005, 1013 (D. Haw. 2010), or, where the documents sealed were not described with particularity, see Lombardi v. TriWest Healthcare Alliance Corporation, NO. CV-08-02381-PHX-FJM, 2009 WL 1212170, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 4, 2009). In contrast, here, the complained-of pleadings do not specifically reference plaintiff s medical condition and medical records are not included in any of the filings. her The documents, instead, resemble garden variety filings common to any FMLA lawsuit. impugn her As to Cuturilo s claim that certain documents personal reputation in the nursing field, her anxiety in this regard is no different from the concern any 3 employee would have when they are terminated and then sues their employer. Additionally, Cuturilo does not present any specific evidence that employment or she that has experienced she has any suffered problems any seeking particularized embarrassment. Cuturilo also requests that, in lieu of sealing, the statements redacted. she identifies Plaintiff as refers confidential to Fed. R. and/or Civ. P damaging 5.2(e) be which provides: Rule 5.2. Privacy Protection For Filings Made with the Court (e) Protective Orders. For good cause, the court may by order in a case: (1) require information; or redaction of additional (2) limit or prohibit a nonparty's remote electronic access to a document filed with the court The Court initially questions the applicability of this Rule, which pertains to protective orders, at this stage of the proceedings. In any event, the Comment to the Rule reads: Subdivision (e) provides that the court can by order in a particular case for good cause require more extensive redaction than otherwise required by the Rule. Nothing in this subdivision is intended to affect the limitations on sealing that are otherwise applicable to the court. 4 Thus, the redaction rule does not trump the disfavoring of restricted access. In sum, when weighed against the significant public interest in access to judicial records, Cuturilo has made an insignificant interests. showing of potential harm to her privacy She has thus failed to meet her burden of justifying the sealing of the judicial record, in whole or in part, or redaction of the case documents. AND NOW, this 23rd day of February, 2012, for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Seal/Redact the Record (Doc. # 41) is DENIED. s/Robert C. Mitchell Robert C. Mitchell United States Magistrate Judge 5

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.