ORDER denying sealed and/or ex parte motion 75 . The Court has denied Pickett's motion to seal, it is further ORDERED that the Clerk UNFILE document number 75-1 so that¶
Pickett v. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC) et al, No. 5:20-cv-00232-H-BQ (N.D. Tex.) · Dkt. 81 · 2023-07-18 · PDF
Text extracted from the PDF; scanned pages were read by OCR. The PDF is the authoritative copy.
Case
8181 Filed
Page 1 of
PageID1277
1277
Case5:20-cv-00232-H-BV
5:20-cv-00232-H-BVDocument
Document
Filed07/18/23
07/18/23 Page
of 44 PageID
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
§
AMY PICKETT,
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
v.
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-CV-232-H-BQ
§
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH
§
SCIENCES CENTER (TTUHSC), et al.,
§
§
Defendants.
§
ORDER
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Amy Pickett's motion asking the Court to seal her June
12, 2023 deposition. ECF No. 75. Pickett also seeks to submit "supporting case documents and
discovery evidence" that the parties referred to during the deposition and that she purportedly
provided to defense counsel. Id. at 2. Defendants Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center,
Barbara Cherry, and Michael Evans (collectively, Defendants) oppose Pickett's motion, arguing
that she "has not asserted that any statute or rule permits her to seal a deposition transcript." ECF
No. 77, at 1. For the reasons below, the Court DENIES Pickett's motion without prejudice.
I. Background and Parties' Arguments
Defendants took Pickett's deposition on June 12, and on June 20, the parties received the
transcript. ECF No. 75, at 1; see ECF No. 78, at 1; ECF No. 79, at 2. By even date herewith, the
Court has entered an order extending the deadline to July 28, 2023, for the parties to submit any
corrections to the deposition transcript. See FED. R. CIV. P. 30(e).
Although no party has yet filed any portion of the transcript, Pickett preemptively seeks to
protect her "student and health information," including deposition exhibits and testimony. ECF
No. 75, at 1. Pickett also attaches to her motion "supporting case documents and discovery
Case
8181 Filed
Page 2 of 44 PageID
PageID1278
1278
Case5:20-cv-00232-H-BV
5:20-cv-00232-H-BVDocument
Document
Filed07/18/23
07/18/23 Page
evidence," which she provided to defense counsel at the deposition and that she seeks to "submit[]
to have on record." Id. at 2; see ECF No. 75-1.
Defendants oppose the motion because Pickett "has not asserted that any statute or rule
permits her to seal a deposition transcript." ECF No. 77, at 1. They "affirmatively state," however,
that they "do not intend to file any documents containing [Pickett's] protected health or student
information in a manner that is inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, federal law,
or this Court's Local Rules." Id. at 2. Defendants further observe "that the only party who has
filed [Pickett's] protected health or student information to date has been [Pickett] herself." Id.
(citing ECF Nos. 63-1, 73-1).
II. Discussion
"[T]he public has a common law right to inspect and copy judicial records." S.E.C. v. Van
Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d 845, 848 (5th Cir. 1993); see In re Gee, No. 19-30953, 2019 WL
13067384, at *4 (5th Cir. Nov. 27, 2019) (Elrod, J., concurring) ("The public has an interest in
transparent court proceedings that is independent of the parties' interests."). "[S]ealing
information placed in the judicial record" is therefore "heavily disfavor[ed]." June Med. Servs.,
L.L.C. v. Phillips, 22 F.4th 512, 519-20 (5th Cir. 2022). The public's right to judicial records,
however, "is not absolute." Van Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d at 848.
Although "the working presumption is that judicial records should not be sealed," parties
"sometimes have good reasons to file documents (or portions of them) under seal, such as
protecting trade secrets or the identities of confidential informants." Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990
F.3d 410, 419 (5th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). In considering whether to seal judicial records
(i.e., documents filed on the public record), courts employ a strict balancing test, weighing "the
public's common law right of access against the interests favoring nondisclosure." Id. (citation
2
Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d at 848 (citation omitted).
Case
8181 Filed
Page 3
3 of 44 PageID
PageID1279
1279
Case5:20-cv-00232-H-BV
5:20-cv-00232-H-BVDocument
Document
Filed07/18/23
07/18/23 Page
omitted); see Phillips, 22 F.4th at 521 (describing ·the standard for shielding records from public
view· filed ·at the adjudicative stage· as ·far more arduous· (emphasis and citation omitted)).
This balancing must be made on a case-by-case, document-by-document basis, and courts should
articulate any reasons supporting the decision to seal. Le, 990 F.3d at 419; see Vantage Health
Plan, Inc. v. Willis-Knighton Med. Ctr., 913 F.3d 443, 450·51 (5th Cir. 2019). Ultimately,
however, sealing judicial records is ·left to the sound discretion of the trial court.· Van
Pickett seeks leave to apply ·a confidentiality seal· to a deposition transcript that has not
yet been finalized, much less filed on the record by any party. ECF No. 75, at 2. Pickett·s request
is therefore premature. On this basis alone, the Court denies Pickett·s motion.
But even turning to the merits, Pickett has not shown that the entire deposition should be
sealed. Pickett generally contends that the Court must protect her confidential information·
including ·student and health information,· as well as a confidential document (id. at 1)·but she
has not shown that each line of the deposition contains confidential information such that it should
be shielded from the public. Phillips, 22 F.4th at 521 (directing courts to engage in a ·documentby-document, line-by-line balancing of the public·s common law right of access against the
interests favoring nondisclosure· (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
Finally, Pickett·s attempt to submit sealed documents ·to have on record· is improper.
ECF No. 75, at 2. The documents are not in support of a dispositive or other germane motion, nor
has Pickett provided any explanation as to their relevance to her claims in this action. See id. at
1·2. For these reasons, the Court cannot at this time seal the documents attached to her motion
(ECF No. 75-1), and they should be unfiled by the Clerk to avoid any potentially confidential
information becoming public.
3
Case
8181 Filed
Page 4
4 of
PageID1280
1280
Case5:20-cv-00232-H-BV
5:20-cv-00232-H-BVDocument
Document
Filed07/18/23
07/18/23 Page
of 44 PageID
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Pickett's motion without prejudice to her ability to renew
her request should she find it necessary to file portions of the deposition transcript and/or other
documents. The Court cautions Pickett, however, that in considering any future request to seal
information, it will engage in the document-by-document, line-by-line evaluation mandated by
Fifth Circuit precedent. Pickett should therefore endeavor to provide specific reason(s) for sealing
each portion of a document or deposition transcript she seeks to file under seal. See, e.g., Powers
v. Duff & Phelps, LLC, No. 1:13·CV·768, 2015 WL 1758079, at *2·5 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2015)
(evaluating separately each portion of defendant's request to file under seal deposition testimony
and exhibits). Because the Court has denied Pickett's motion to seal, it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk UNFILE document number 75-1 so that any potentially
confidential documents do not become public.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 18, 2023.
D. GORDON BRYANT, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4