Hoff v. Joyce

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Kevin Michael Hoff, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER
)
vs. 	)
)
Joseph Joyce, Warden, North Dakota 	)
State Penitentiary, 	) 	Case No. 1:22-cv-151
)
Defendant. 	)
Plaintiff, a diabetic, is in State custody at the North Dakota State Penitentiary (“NDSP”).
He is asserting claims regarding the dispensation of his insulin by NDSP staff, his disciplinary
proceedings, and his legal mail.
The disclosure of Plaintiff’s medical records is governed by N.D.C.C. § 12-47-36, which
provides the following in relevant part:
2. 	The medical, psychological, and treatment records of the department of corrections
and rehabilitation or its divisions or departments relating to persons in the custody
or under the supervision and management of the division of adult services of the
department of corrections and rehabilitation are confidential, and may not be
disclosed directly or indirectly to any person, organization, or agency, except as
otherwise provided in this section. A district court may order the inspection of
medical, psychological, and treatment records, or parts of those records, upon
application to the court and a showing that there is a proper and legitimate purpose
for the inspection of the records, with service of the application on the department
of corrections and rehabilitation and opportunity for the department of corrections
and rehabilitation to submit a written response.
3. 	Notwithstanding any other provisions of law relating to privilege or confidentiality,
except for the confidentiality requirements of federal drug and alcohol treatment and
rehabilitation laws, the following persons, organizations, or agencies without prior
application to the court may inspect case history, medical, psychological, or
treatment records:
* * *
1
Case 1:22-cv-00151-CRH Document 55 Filed 08/16/23 Page 1 of 4

j. 	A state or federal court where a person who is or was in the custody or under
the supervision and management of the adult services division of the
department of corrections and rehabilitation has commenced litigation and,
the parties, their counsel, and representatives of the parties in proceedings,
if the records are relevant to the litigation and the subject of the records has
signed an authorization.
N.D.C.C. § 12-47-36(2) and (3)(j).
On July 27, 2023, Defendant filed a motion seeking leave of court to file his motion for
summary judgment, brief in support of his motion for summary judgment, and exhibits (the
declaration of the Correctional Unit Manager, an incident report, a notice that Plaintiff had been
charged with a Level III infraction, a report of the Disciplinary Action Committee's decision
regarding the infraction, Plaintiff's appeal of the Disciplinary Action Committee’s decision, the
declaration and administrative notes of the physician treating Plaintiff at the NDSP, and Plaintiff's
housing location history) under seal in order to comply with N.D.C.C. § 12-47-36(2) and shield
Plaintiff’s records outside the bounds of N.D.C.C. § 12-47-36(3). (Doc. No. 52). He notes that,
while he has obtained a signed authorization from Plaintiff, N.D.C.C. § 12-47-36(3) does not allow
for the inspection of medical records by the public.
It is well-established that the public has a common-law right of access to judicial records.
Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). This right of access is not absolute,
but requires a weighing of competing interests. The decision to file a document under seal is a
matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court. See Webster Groves Sch. Dist. v. Pulitzer Publ'g
Co., 898 F.2d 1371, 1376 (8th Cir. 1990). A party seeking to seal a judicial record must demonstrate
a compelling interest which overrides the qualified First Amendment right of public access enjoyed
by the public and press. United States v. McDougal, 103 F.3d 651, 658 (8th Cir. 1996). A court
deciding to seal a document must explain why sealing was necessary and why less restrictive
2
Case 1:22-cv-00151-CRH Document 55 Filed 08/16/23 Page 2 of 4

alternatives were not appropriate. See In re Search Warrant for Secretarial Area Outside Office of
Gunn, 855 F.2d 569, 574 (8th Cir. 1988); In re Sealed Documents, Standing Order (D.N.D. Sept.
30, 2011).
Generally, a qualified right of access attaches to dispositive documents and materials filed
in conjunction with dispositive motions. Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir.
2007); Baxter Int'l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 546 (7th Cir. 2002) ("[D]ispositive
documents in any litigation enter the public record notwithstanding any earlier agreement. How else
are observers to know what the suit is about or assess the judges' disposition of it?"); Webster
Groves, 898 F.2d at 1376 (“Where the common-law right of access is implicated, the court must
consider the degree to which sealing a judicial record would interfere with the interests served by
the common-law right of access and balance that interference against the salutary interests served
by maintaining confidentiality of the information sought to be sealed.”).
The Eighth Circuit has stated that “only the most compelling reasons can justify
non-disclosure of judicial records.” 	In re Neal, 461 F.3d 1048, 1053 (8th Cir. 2006) (internal
quotation marks omitted). 	“[E]ven where a party can show a compelling reason why certain
documents or portions thereof should be sealed, the seal itself must be narrowly tailored to serve that
reason.” 	Shane Group, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016)
(citing Press-Enter. Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., 464 U.S. 501, 509-11 (1984)). Therefore, the party
seeking sealing must “analyze in detail, document by document, the propriety of secrecy, providing
reasons and legal citations.” Baxter, 297 F.3d at 548.
The filing of certain highly confidential documents under seal, such as medical records is
understandable. However, the court is not persuaded that the motion summary judgment, supporting
3
Case 1:22-cv-00151-CRH Document 55 Filed 08/16/23 Page 3 of 4

brief, and exhibits other than medical records must be sealed. When the court rules on Defendant’s
motion for summary judgment it has no intention of doing so under seal. In the court's experience,
exhibits can be redacted.
The court appreciates Defendant’s conscientiousness. However, Plaintiff filed this action
and in so doing put his medical condition and Defendant’s response to it at issue. Public access is
the norm. If this case should proceed to trial, the trial would be conducted in a public courtroom.
Under these circumstances, the court is not inclined permit Defendant to file his motion for summary
judgment, supporting brief, or exhibits other than medical records under seal. Medical records aside,
there does not appear to be any state statutory restrictions on the disclosure of documents relating
to disciplinary proceedings, documents regarding housing assignments, or declarations made by a
physician in the course of litigation about a litigant.
For the reasons set forth above, the motion for leave to file under seal (Doc. No. 52) is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendant may file Plaintiff’s medical records
under seal. 	However, the court will not authorize Defendant to file his motion for summary
judgment, supporting brief, or exhibits other than Plaintiff’s medical records under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 16th day of August, 2023.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
4
Case 1:22-cv-00151-CRH Document 55 Filed 08/16/23 Page 4 of 4