BENSON et al v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
LEON BENSON, et al., 	)
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:24-cv-00839-JPH-MJD
)
CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER ON MOTIONS MOTION TO SEAL
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Alan Jones' Motions to Seal, [Dkts. 142,
168], and Plaintiff's Motion to Seal, [Dkt. 163.] For the reasons set forth below, Jones' motions
are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
I. Background
Jones has filed a sealed Motion for Protective Order seeking relief from participating in
discovery because he has dementia. [Dkt. 141.] He has also filed a Motion to Seal the Motion
for Protective Order and related exhibits. [Dkt. 142.] The sealed exhibits include a list of
exhibits, an affidavit signed by expert declarant Dr. Brosch summarizing two of Jones' medical
records, a medical record from a July 2025 consultation with Dr. Brosch, a medical record from
an October 2025 evaluation by neuropsychologist Dr. Unverzagt, and an email written by Jones'
counsel describing Dr. Brosch's findings at a high level. [Dkts. 14-1 to 5.]
Plaintiffs filed a brief in response to the Motion for Protective Order and a Motion to
Maintain their response brief under seal. [Dkts. 161, 163.]
Case 1:24-cv-00839-JPH-MJD Document 174 Filed 12/15/25 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Jones later filed a reply brief in support of his Motion for Protective Order, and a motion
to maintain his reply brief and related exhibits under seal. [Dkts. 167, 168.] The sealed exhibits
include sealed filings from unrelated cases, an affidavit from his counsel's managing partner, and
a portion of a sealed deposition transcript from an unrelated case. [Dkts. 167-1 to 5.] All of
those exhibits were filed under seal.
II. Legal Standard
Courts must take care when determining whether to seal documents and thus shield them
from the public. This is because "[d]ocuments that affect the disposition of federal litigation are
presumptively open to public view, even if the litigants strongly prefer secrecy, unless a statute,
rule, or privilege justifies confidentiality." In re Specht, 622 F.3d 697, 701 (7th Cir. 2010); see
Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1073 (7th Cir. 2009) ("It is beyond dispute that most documents
filed in court are presumptively open to the public."). This long-standing presumption of public
access may be rebutted under certain circumstances, however. For example, a litigant may
request to "conceal trade secrets, and, if there are compelling reasons of personal privacy, to
litigate under a pseudonym." Goesel v. Boley Int'l (H.K.) Ltd., 738 F.3d 831, 832 (7th Cir. 2013)
Still, "very few categories of documents are kept confidential once their bearing on the merits of
a suit has been revealed." Baxter Int'l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 547 (7th Cir. 2002).
A party may therefore only file a document under seal if it has shown "good cause" to do
so. Citizens First Nat'l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 945 (7th Cir.
1999); see In re Bridgestone / Firestone, Inc., ATX, ATX II, & Wilderness Tires Prods. Liab.
Litig., 198 F.R.D. 654, 656 (S.D. Ind. 2001) ("The good cause determination requires at least 'a
description of the documents and the reasons for their sealing.'") (quoting In re Associated Press,
162 F.3d 503, 510 (7th Cir. 1998)). It is not enough to merely assert that disclosure would be
Case 1:24-cv-00839-JPH-MJD Document 174 Filed 12/15/25 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
harmful; a party must explain how disclosure would cause harm. Baxter, 297 F.3d at 547.
Moreover, simply designating information as confidential is insufficient to permit under-seal
filing, see Union Oil Co. of California v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567 (7th Cir. 2000) (explaining
that requests to seal documents based on confidentiality orders have been uniformly rejected
unless good cause exists), and "[a] protective order does not authorize a party to file a document
under seal." Local R. 5-11(d)(1)(D).
III. Discussion
A. Jones' Motion to Seal the Motion for Protective Order and Exhibits
The Court begins with Jones' Motion to Seal his Motion for Protective Order and exhibits
in support of that motion. [Dkts. 142.] In that Motion to Seal, he argues that his Motion for
Protective Order and the sealed exhibits contain private medical information that is shielded
from public view under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPPA").
As an initial matter, the Court notes that the Exhibit List does not include information
that would be protected by HIPAA or any other statute, and the Motion to Seal is DENIED with
respect to this Exhibit List.
Further, it is well-established that courts are not bound by HIPAA, "which regulates the
disclosure of information by only healthcare providers and their affiliates." Mitze v. Saul, 968
F.3d 689, 693 (7th Cir. 2020). To the extent Jones wishes to shield his medical information from
public disclosure due to embarrassment or general privacy concerns, this is not good cause to
deprive the public of its right to access court filings. See Doe v. Trustees of Indiana University,
101 F.4th 485, 492 (7th Cir. 2024). That said, Jones' medical records appear to include some
information about his medical history that is immaterial to the issues before the Court. Thus, the
Court will DENY the motion to seal as it relates to the Motion for Protective Order, Dr. Brosch's
Case 1:24-cv-00839-JPH-MJD Document 174 Filed 12/15/25 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
affidavit, and counsel's email describing Dr. Brosch's findings but will GRANT IN PART the
motion as it relates to Jones' actual medical records. These records will remain under seal, but
the Jones is ORDERED to file redacted versions of these medical records that remove
immaterial medical information only within seven days of the issuance of this Order.
This ruling is consistent with decisions from other courts within this Circuit, which have
noted that medical information is often sensitive but nevertheless must be made public if it is
material to the issues before the court. See, e.g., Williams v. Billington, 2024 WL 492110, at *3
(S.D. Ill. Feb. 8, 2024) (provisionally granting motion to seal medical records that were not
material to issues presently before the court but noting that many if not most of the medical
records would ultimately be made public later in the proceedings because they relate to
damages); Finnegan v. Baldwin, 2021 WL 365782, at *3 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 3, 2021) ("[t]hough
Plaintiff's medical information is private, this private interest, without more, is insufficient to
outweigh the public's interest in transparent judicial proceedings"); Westedt v. Franklin, 2016
WL 2997504, at *1 (E.D. Wis. May 23, 2016) (unsealing relevant portions of medical records
cited or quoted by the parties in other documents but maintaining under seal irrelevant portions
of those same records).
B. Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal
The Court will next address Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal their brief in response to the
Motion for Protective Order. [Dkt. 163.] As explained in the preceding section, the fact that
Plaintiffs' response brief describes Jones' medical condition and/or relevant portions of his
medical records is not good cause to maintain the response brief under seal. Accordingly, the
motion is DENIED.
Case 1:24-cv-00839-JPH-MJD Document 174 Filed 12/15/25 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
C. Jones' Motion to Seal Reply Brief and Related Exhibits
Finally, the Court turns to Jones' Motion to Seal his reply brief and related exhibits filed.
[Dkt. 168.] The motion is DENIED as to the reply brief itself for the reasons explained in the
preceding sections. The motion is DENIED as to the affidavit signed by Sotos Law Firm, P.C.
Managing Partner Laura Ranum. This affidavit describes at a high level her experience litigating
claims in unrelated lawsuits against the firm representing Plaintiffs' counsel in this case. This
affidavit does not contain any confidential information, and there is no good cause to maintain
the affidavit under seal.
The motion is GRANTED as to the sealed filings and a portion of a sealed deposition
transcript from unrelated cases. The Court has explained in a footnote to the Order Denying
Jones' Motion for Protective Order, which is issued contemporaneously with the present Order,
that these exhibits are wholly immaterial to the issues before the Court and were not relied upon
in any way in the Court's ruling. Given that these exhibits are immaterial to the issues before this
Court, were sealed by other courts in unrelated matters, and involve the medical information of
individuals who are not parties to the present lawsuit, the Court finds that maintaining these
documents under seal is the best approach in these circumstances.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons explained above, Jones' Motions to Seal are GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART. [Dkts. 142, 168.] Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal is DENIED. [Dkt. 163.]
The Clerk is directed to unseal the following docket entries: Jones' Motion for Protective
Order, the Exhibit List, Dr. Brosch's affidavit, counsel's email discussing Dr. Brosch's Findings,
Plaintiffs' Response Brief, Jones' Reply Brief, and Lauran Ranum's affidavit. [Dkts. 141, 141-1,
141-2, 141-5, 161, 167, and 167-4.] The following documents shall be permanently sealed:
Case 1:24-cv-00839-JPH-MJD Document 174 Filed 12/15/25 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Jones' medical records, the sealed filings from unrelated cases, the portion of a sealed deposition
transcript from an unrelated case. [Dkts. 141-3, 141-4, 167-1, 167-2, 167-3.]
Jones is ORDERED to file properly redacted versions of his medical records, [dkts. 141-
3, 141-4], within seven days of the issuance of this Order. Over-redaction of those documents
may result in a denial of the motion to seal them.
Pursuant to Local Rule 5-11(g), documents ordered unsealed by this Order shall be
unsealed after 21 days absent a Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) objection, a motion to reconsider, an appeal,
or further court order.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: 15 DEC 2025
Distribution:
All ECF-registered counsel of record via email
Case 1:24-cv-00839-JPH-MJD Document 174 Filed 12/15/25 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>