Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Genesh, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GENESH, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 24-2445-AJP-ADM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiffs Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), Tauna
Frederick, Lucille Zachariah, and Karla Lassen filed suit against Defendant
Genesh, Inc. (“Genesh”) asserting claims of unlawful employment practices,
including sexual harassment. Before the Court are Plaintiffs EEOC and Zachariah’s
Motion to Retain Redactions in ECF 409-1 (Doc. 413); Motion to Seal & Redact (Doc.
489); Motion to Seal & Redact (Doc. 505); Motion to Redact (Doc. 507); Motion to
Seal & Redact (Doc. 524); and Motion to Seal and Redact (Doc. 536). The Court
grants and denies the motions as explained below.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff EEOC filed this action against Defendant Genesh, the owner and
operator of more than 50 Burger King restaurant franchises, located in Kansas and
Missouri, alleging that Genesh violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
Case 2:24-cv-02445-AJP-ADM Document 541 Filed 10/08/26 Page 1 of 23

-2-
Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 by, among other things, sexually harassing
Lucille Zachariah (who was a minor at the time) and a class of female employees.
Tauna Frederick, Lucille Zachariah, and Karla Lassen intervened as plaintiffs.
In April 2026, Defendant moved for relief from the Magistrate Judge’s order
allowing Zachariah to proceed under a pseudonym (Doc. 409). Defendant attached a
redacted version of Zachariah’s State Court Petition as an exhibit to that motion.
(Doc. 409-1). Both were filed provisionally under seal. Plaintiffs then moved to
retain the redactions to preserve Zachariah’s identity. (Doc. 413).
Currently, the parties have six motions to seal and redact that relate to three
substantive pending motions, for which they have filed numerous exhibits
provisionally under seal, pending the Court’s ruling on the six motions to seal and
redact.
The first substantive motion at issue is Defendant’s Motion to Exclude or
Limit the Expert Testimony of Dr. Stephen Peterson and Louise Fitzgerald (Doc.
480). Plaintiffs moved to seal and redact Defendant’s motion (Docs. 480, 482) and
eighteen of the attached exhibits (Docs. 481-1–18) because they contain sensitive
information related to Zachariah’s medical information and sexual history as a
minor. (Doc. 489).
Defendant then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 484) and
provisionally sealed 28 exhibits in support of said motion. Plaintiffs moved to seal
Doc. 485-15 and to redact Docs. 484, 484-5, 485-4, 485-6, 485-7, 485-10, 485-11, 485-
15, 485-16, 485-19, 485-21, and 485-24. (Doc. 489).
Case 2:24-cv-02445-AJP-ADM Document 541 Filed 10/08/26 Page 2 of 23

-3-
Lastly, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Dr.
Sanya Virani and Matthew Wester (Doc. 487). They provisionally filed the motion
and its 10 exhibits under seal. Plaintiffs then moved to seal the briefing and the
exhibits. (Doc. 489).
In August 2026, the Court held that Zachariah could no longer proceed under
a pseudonym. Consequently, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause as to why
their motions to seal and redact (Docs. 413 and 489) should be granted. Plaintiffs
responded to the Court’s August 2026 Order to Show Cause stating that the Motion
to Retain Redactions (Doc. 413) could be denied because the August 2026 order
resolved the issue. (Doc. 525). Plaintiffs also reduced the number of filings they
sought to seal and redact in Doc. 489. (Doc. 525).
Also in August 2026, Plaintiffs responded to Defendant’s Motion to Exclude
Expert Testimony (Doc. 497) with 16 exhibits attached thereto. Plaintiffs then
moved to seal the briefing (Doc. 497) and 10 exhibits (Docs. 497-1–4, 497-7–8, 497-
13–16) and to redact Doc. 497-9 to protect Zachariah’s sensitive medical information
and information related to minors. (Doc. 505). Plaintiffs then moved to redact
Defendant’s response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony (Doc. 501)
to protect Zachariah’s sensitive medical information. (Doc. 507).
In September 2026, Plaintiff EEOC filed a response to Defendant’s Summary
Judgment motion (Doc. 509) and provisionally filed four exhibits under seal (Doc.
513). Plaintiffs then moved to seal and redact those four exhibits. (Doc. 524).
Case 2:24-cv-02445-AJP-ADM Document 541 Filed 10/08/26 Page 3 of 23

-4-
Also in September, Defendant filed a reply to its Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 528) and provisionally sealed seven exhibits (Doc. 533). Plaintiffs
moved to seal Doc. 533-6 because it contains sensitive medical information and to
redact Docs. 533-1–5 and 533-7 to preserve Jane Doe’s anonymity. (Doc. 536).
II. Legal Standard
The Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit recognize a general right to the
public to access and inspect judicial records. See Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,
435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007).
“Whether judicial records and other case-related information should be sealed or
otherwise withheld from the public is a matter left to the sound discretion of the
district court.” Mann, 477 F.3d at 1149 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599).
A motion to seal or redact must include:
(1) a description of the specific portions of the document, . . . which
must be narrowly tailored to the asserted confidentiality interest;
(2) the confidentiality interest to be protected and why such interest
outweighs the presumption of public access (stipulations between the
parties or stipulated protective orders, alone, are insufficient to justify
restriction);
(3) a clearly defined and serious injury that would result in the absence
of restricting public access;
(4) why no lesser alternative is practicable or why restricting public
access will adequately protect the confidentiality interest in question;
[and]
(5) the extent to which the motion is opposed or unopposed, if known . .
. . D. Kan. R. 5.4.2(c).
When deciding a motion to seal or redact, the Court applies “a strong
presumption in favor of public access” because it “recognize[s] a general right to
Case 2:24-cv-02445-AJP-ADM Document 541 Filed 10/08/26 Page 4 of 23

-5-
inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and
documents.” United States v. Johnson, 125 F.4th 1352, 1360 (10th Cir. 2025)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “This ‘strong presumption’
increases when the information subject to a request to seal or redact provides the
basis for a court’s decision on the merits of the litigation.” Uhlig LLC v. CoreLogic,
Inc., No. 21-2543-DDC, 2024 WL 1703557, at *1 (D. Kan. Apr. 19, 2024) (quoting
United States v. Pickard, 733 F.3d 1297, 1302 (10th Cir. 2013)). “Parties may rebut
this presumption by demonstrating that ‘countervailing interests heavily outweigh
the public interests in access.’” Johnson, 125 F.4th at 1360 (quoting Mann, 477 F.3d
at 1149). “The movant bears a heavy burden to demonstrate a real and substantial
interest that outweighs the public interest in accessing the documents.” Elevate
Fed. Credit Union v. Elevations Credit Union, 67 F.4th 1058, 1085 (10th Cir. 2023)
(citing McWilliams v. DiNapoli, 40 F.4th 1118, 1130–31 (10th Cir. 2022)).
III. Analysis
A. Motion to Retain Redactions in ECF 409-1 (Doc. 413)
The redactions in Doc. 409-1 concealed Zachariah’s identity because she was
proceeding under a pseudonym. Now that Zachariah is no longer proceeding under a
pseudonym, EEOC and Zachariah claim that the issues raised in the Motion to
Retain Redactions (Doc. 413) have been resolved, so the motion can be denied. The
Court agrees and denies Plaintiffs’ motion.
Case 2:24-cv-02445-AJP-ADM Document 541 Filed 10/08/26 Page 5 of 23

-6-
B. Motion to Seal and Redact (Doc. 489)
Plaintiffs EEOC and Zachariah moved to seal and redact a total of 34
documents because they contained sensitive information about a minor, they
identified individuals proceeding under pseudonyms, and they relied upon school
records that were previously excluded. Before ruling on this motion, the Court held
that Zachariah could no longer proceed under a pseudonym. The Court then ordered
Zachariah to show cause as to why the motion to seal and redact should still be
granted. Plaintiffs EEOC and Zachariah responded to the order to show cause and
modified their requests to seal and redact. They now move to seal several exhibits
supporting Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony (Docs. 481-2, 481-4,
481-5, 481-6, 481-7, 481-9, 485-14, 487-1, 487-2, 487-3, 487-4, 487-5, 487-7, 487-9)
and to redact Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony (Docs. 480, 482),1
the exhibit list for Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 484-5), and
several exhibits in support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs.
485-4, 485-7, 485-15, 485-24).
Plaintiffs argue that the documents should be sealed or redacted because
they either contain sensitive medical information, contain a photograph of
Zachariah’s face when she was a minor, contain information about Zachariah’s
school records that were previously excluded, contain identifying information
generally protected from public disclosure, or expose Jane Doe’s identity. Defendant
1 Docs. 480 and 482 are identical documents with identical proposed redactions, and they
were not provisionally sealed when filed.
Case 2:24-cv-02445-AJP-ADM Document 541 Filed 10/08/26 Page 6 of 23

-7-
generally opposes the motion arguing that Plaintiffs’ requests are inconsistent and
not specifically tailored to particular privacy interests. Defendant, however, states
that it “continues its limited nonopposition to narrowly tailored protection of
independent privacy interests, including redactions required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2
and Jane Doe’s identity . . . .” (Doc. 535 at 6).
1. Sensitive Medical Information
In response to the Order to Show Cause, Plaintiffs assert that Docs. 480, 481-
2, 481-4, 481-5, 481-6, 481-7, 481-9, 482, 485-15, 487-1, 487-2, 487-3, 487-4, 487-5,
487-7, 487-9 “contain highly sensitive medical information about Plaintiff
Zachariah” and should be either sealed or redacted. (Doc. 525 at 2). Plaintiffs
argued in their original motion that these documents needed to be sealed because
they contain sensitive health information regarding Zachariah’s medical diagnosis
and her sexual history as a minor, both of which are recognized privacy interests.
Plaintiffs contend that if this information were to be unsealed, Zachariah would be
subject to “further victimization as well as harm to her well-being and dignity.”
(Doc. 489 at 4).
As Plaintiffs assert, medical records are a type of document that a court may
seal. Williams v. FedEx Corp. Servs., 849 F.3d 889, 905 (10th Cir. 2017) (citing AST
Sports Sci., Inc. v. CLF Distrib. Ltd., 514 F.3d 1054, 1057 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008)).
However, this confidentiality interest is diminished when that information is
already in the public record. Id. As highlighted by Defendant, there are
inconsistencies in the information Plaintiffs request to seal or redact and the
Case 2:24-cv-02445-AJP-ADM Document 541 Filed 10/08/26 Page 7 of 23

-8-
information Plaintiffs are allowing to remain public. After reviewing the documents
Plaintiffs seek to seal and redact and the documents Plaintiffs no longer seek to
seal, it is unclear to the Court what interest Plaintiffs specifically want to protect.
Pieces of information such as Zachariah’s diagnoses are concealed in some
documents and left available to the public in others. See e.g., Docs. 480, 487
(describing Zachariah’s diagnoses without seeking to seal or redact).
The specific methodology, diagnoses, and treatment are also contested in both
Defendant’s and Plaintiffs’ Daubert motions. Because Plaintiff Zachariah’s
diagnoses are a central issue, Plaintiffs’ burden is heightened to demonstrate that
the information should be concealed from the public, Uhlig, 2024 WL 1703557, at
*1, and Plaintiff’s confidentiality interest is diminished. See also Bell v. Younger,
No. 26-2374-HLT-BGS, 2026 WL 2105768, at *2 (D. Kan. July 22, 2026) (noting that
the plaintiff’s medical records were central to her case and squarely at issue and
thus “the public has an interest in information the court utilizes in resolving the
motions at issue) (quoting Chadwell v. United States, No. 20-1372-JWB, 2024 WL
4298677, at *1 (D. Kan. Sept. 26, 2024)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Furthermore, Plaintiffs ask to seal entire documents including Dr. Peterson’s
full evaluation of Zachariah, Dr. Virani’s full critique of Dr. Peterson’s evaluation,
Dr. Virani’s entire deposition, and the full rebuttal report from Wester Consulting
LLC. These documents collectively are 180 pages. Plaintiffs’ only argument,
however, is that the documents “contain highly sensitive medical information”
without further explanation. An oblique reference such as this does not constitute
Case 2:24-cv-02445-AJP-ADM Document 541 Filed 10/08/26 Page 8 of 23

-9-
the articulation of a confidentiality interest that is “real and not speculative.”
Chadwell, 2024 WL 4298677, at *1. This statement is also not specific enough to
meet the requirement that the party describe the specific portions of the document
that warrant protection and to narrowly tailor the request to the confidentiality
interest. See D. Kan. R. 5.4.2(c)(1). Moreover, Plaintiffs fail to argue how the
confidentiality interest outweighs the public’s interest. See D. Kan. R. 5.4.2(c)(2).
Plaintiffs also request to redact Zachariah’s father’s deposition because it
contains Zachariah’s sensitive medical information. The proposed redactions,
however, relate to medical information about Zachariah and Zachariah’s mother.
Plaintiffs do not argue that there is a confidentiality interest in Zachariah’s
mother’s medical information; therefore, those redactions are not appropriate.
Defendant, however, argued that the redaction might be appropriate if Plaintiffs
identified the proper privacy interest.
Because Plaintiffs’ request does not align with information that Plaintiffs are
disclosing to the public, includes information central to the issues of the case, and
does not meet the briefing requirements, the Court denies without prejudice
Plaintiffs’ request to seal the exhibits contained in Docs. 481-2, 481-4, 481-5, 481-6,
481-7, 481-9, 487-1, 487-2, 487-3, 487-4, 487-5, 487-7, 487-9 and to redact Doc. 485-
15.2 The documents, however, will remain provisionally sealed. The Court directs
Plaintiffs and Defendant to meet and confer, within 14 days of this Order, to
2 Doc. 485-15 contains two categories of sensitive information: medical information and
school records. The Court’s ruling on the redactions in this document related to school information is
in Section III(B)(3).
Case 2:24-cv-02445-AJP-ADM Document 541 Filed 10/08/26 Page 9 of 23

-10-
determine whether the parties can agree on appropriate redactions to these
documents to conceal only those sensitive details related to Zachariah’s diagnoses,
treatments, medical history, and sexual history that have not been publicly
disclosed and are not relied upon by either party to determine the substantive
motions still before the Court. Plaintiffs shall then file a revised Motion to Seal or
Redact, within 21 days of this Order, identifying the documents that the parties
agree upon. To the extent the parties are not able to come to an agreement,
Plaintiffs must adequately set forth reasons that the documents should be sealed.
The parties can also propose other redactions, such as a non-party’s medical
information, provided a sufficient confidentiality interest is identified and
explained. Plaintiffs’ revised motion must also conform to the requirements of D.
Kan. 5.4.2(C).3
In addition to Plaintiffs’ request to seal or redact exhibits, Plaintiffs seek to
redact Defendant’s briefing on its Motion to Exclude Expert Witnesses (Docs. 480,
482). As noted above, there is a heightened burden because the public has an
interest in the motions at issue. Furthermore, these documents have not been
provisionally sealed, so they have been available to the public since July 29, 2026,
which greatly diminishes Plaintiffs’ claim of an injury resulting from this
information remaining public. Also, Plaintiffs’ proposed redactions redact
3 Plaintiffs should note that even if the parties agree on redacting or sealing documents, the
Court must “independently decide whether sealing is appropriate” because “the right of access
protects the public, not just the parties.” McWilliams, 40 F.4th at 1131. Plaintiffs are also advised
not to rely upon protections afforded in prior orders (Docs. 305 and 308) as the confidentiality
interests relied upon in those orders have since been altered by the parties’ public filings and the
Court’s Orders.
Case 2:24-cv-02445-AJP-ADM Document 541 Filed 10/08/26 Page 10 of 23

-11-
information that is available publicly in other locations and within these
documents. For example, Plaintiffs’ attempt to redact information relating to
Zachariah’s diagnoses are inconsistent as certain pages of the document are
redacted but other pages of the document are not.4 Thus, the Court denies Plaintiffs’
request to redact Docs. 480 and 482.
The Court denies Plaintiffs’ request to seal 481-2, 481-4, 481-5, 481-6, 481-7,
481-9, 487-1, 487-2, 487-3, 487-4, 487-5, 487-7, 487-9, and 485-15. The Court,
however, directs Plaintiffs to consult with Defendant as to any agreed-upon
redactions of these documents (within 14 days of this Order) and will allow
Plaintiffs to file a revised Motion to Seal or Redact for these documents within 21
days of this Order. These documents will remain provisionally sealed until further
Order by the Court.
2. Photograph of a Minor
Plaintiffs argue that Exhibit 16 (Doc. 485-14) needs to be sealed because it is
a photograph of Zachariah when she was a minor. Defendant argues that the
photograph should not be sealed because Zachariah posted it publicly and Plaintiffs
admit that Zachariah did so. Because the photograph has already been made public
by Zachariah and because her identity is no longer being concealed from the public,
the photograph does not depict sensitive information. Moreover, as Plaintiffs fail to
sufficiently argue that there is a privacy interest that heavily outweighs the public’s
interest, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ request to seal Doc. 485-14.
4 Docs. 480 and 482 are identical documents with identical proposed redactions.
Case 2:24-cv-02445-AJP-ADM Document 541 Filed 10/08/26 Page 11 of 23

-12-
3. Zachariah’s School Records
Plaintiffs seek to redact Exhibits 9 and 17 (Docs. 485-7 at 9, 485-15 at 25)
because they reference Zachariah’s school records that the Court struck from the
deposition records and prohibited the parties from “referencing the documents or
their contents in future depositions or trial testimony in this case.” (Doc. 201 at 12).
Plaintiffs and Defendant agree that Exhibit 9 (Doc. 485-7) should be redacted as
proposed because that reference arose out of the previously stricken documents.
Defendant, however, disagrees with redacting Exhibit 17. The Court, however, finds
that this exhibit references a school record. Because the parties are prohibited from
referencing the school records or the contents therein, the redactions proposed by
Plaintiff for Exhibits 9 and 17 (Docs. 485-7 and 485-15) are granted.5
4. Redactions of Generally Protected Information
Plaintiffs also seek to seal and redact information found in Docs. 485-4, 487-
3, 487-4, and 487-9 because the information is that which is generally protected
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a), the following
information may be included in filings unless the court orders otherwise: “(1) the
last four digits of the social-security number and taxpayer-identification number;
(2) the year of the individual’s birth; (3) the minor’s initials; and (4) the last four
digits of the financial-account number.”
5 Plaintiffs also seek to redact other parts of Exhibit 17 (Doc. 485-15) for containing sensitive
medical information. Plaintiffs’ redactions in this exhibit must also comply with the Court’s ruling in
Section III(B)(1) above.
Case 2:24-cv-02445-AJP-ADM Document 541 Filed 10/08/26 Page 12 of 23

-13-
The proposed redactions for Doc. 485-4 conceal Zachariah’s birth date. The
redactions submitted to the Court, however, also redact Zachariah’s birth year,
which is not in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(2). Plaintiffs can redact all but
the birth year and file the redacted document.
Plaintiffs seek to seal Docs. 487-3 but did not send proposed redactions for
information pertaining to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a). Doc. 487-3 is a 123-page document;
therefore, the Court will not scour the document for potentially redactable
information. The Court, however, will allow Plaintiffs to send proposed redactions,
subject to the requirements and timeframe set forth above in Section III(B)(1) and
in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a).
In addition, Plaintiffs argue that Docs. 487-4 and 487-9 contain medical
billing and taxpayer identification numbers. Again, however, Plaintiff did not send
proposed redactions. The Court instructs Plaintiffs to include redactions of the
account number in Doc. 487-4 in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(4). There is
no need for redactions, however, in Doc. 487-9. Thus, the Court grants Plaintiffs’
request to redact Doc. 487-4 and denies the request to redact Doc. 487-9. The Court
denies without prejudice the request to redact 487-3 and 487-4, and Plaintiffs are
ordered to file a revised Motion to Redact (within 21 days of this Order) for these
documents.
5. Redacting Jane Doe’s Name
Lastly, Plaintiffs seek to redact Jane Doe’s name from Docs. 484-5 and 485-24
to preserve her identity as the parties have agreed. Because the Court has allowed
Case 2:24-cv-02445-AJP-ADM Document 541 Filed 10/08/26 Page 13 of 23

-14-
Jane Doe to proceed pseudonymously at this time, the request to redact her name is
granted. The proposed redactions should be filed by EEOC.
6. Summary
The Court denies without prejudice Plaintiffs’ request to seal documents
containing sensitive medical information. Plaintiffs, however, are ordered to file a
revised Motion to Seal or to Redact for Docs. 481-2, 481-4, 481-5, 481-6, 481-7, 481-
9, 487-1, 487-2, 487-3, 487-4, 487-5, 487-7, 487-9, and 485-15.
The Court denies Plaintiffs’ request to seal Doc. 485-14 for containing
Zachariah’s photograph.
The Court grants Plaintiffs’ request to redact Docs. 485-7 and 485-15 for
containing information from previously stricken documents.6
The Court grants Plaintiffs’ request to redact Doc. 485-4, subject to the
Court’s direction above. The Court denies the request to redact Doc. 487-9. And the
Court denies the request to redact 487-3 and 487-4, but Plaintiffs are ordered to file
a revised Motion to Redact, in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a), the
instructions in this Order, and the local rules within 21 days of this Order.
The Court grants Plaintiffs’ request to redact Jane Doe’s name from Docs.
484-5 and 485-24.
6 Although the Court grants Plaintiffs’ school records redactions, Doc. 485-15 contains two
categories of sensitive information; therefore, Plaintiffs are ordered to include the school records
redactions in their revised motion redacting medical information within this document.
Case 2:24-cv-02445-AJP-ADM Document 541 Filed 10/08/26 Page 14 of 23

-15-
C. Motion to Seal and Redact (Doc. 505)
Plaintiffs EEOC and Zachariah move to seal Plaintiffs’ Response to
Defendant’s Motion to Exclude or Limit Expert Testimony (Doc. 497) and its
supporting exhibits (Docs. 497-1, 497-2, 497-3, 497-4, 497-7, 497-8, 497-13, 497-14,
497-15, and 497-16). They also move to redact Exhibit 10 (Doc. 497-9). Defendant
generally opposes Plaintiffs’ motion for failing to comply with the specificity
requirements, but it does not oppose redacting certain information.
1. Medical Information
Plaintiffs first ask to seal Docs. 497, 497-1, 497-2, 497-3, 497-4, 497-8, 497-14,
497-15, and 497-16 because they contain information about Zachariah’s mental
health treatment and diagnoses. Many of these documents are the same documents,
or contain parts of documents, that Plaintiffs sought to seal or redact in Doc. 525,
which was discussed in Section III(B)(1). As explained above, much of this
information is public or is a central issue in the case.
Comparing Plaintiffs’ requests in Docs. 489 and 525 to their requests in Doc.
505 makes it even harder to discern what information Plaintiffs deem worthy of
protecting from public view. For example, in this Motion to Seal, Plaintiffs now seek
to seal Dr. Peterson’s entire deposition (Doc. 497-2); however, Plaintiffs did not
previously seek to seal the entire deposition and left out two excerpts (Docs. 481-8,
481-11) in its earlier motion. Similarly, Plaintiffs seek to seal information related to
treatment, symptoms, and diagnoses without any consistency. Plaintiffs make no
attempt to distinguish between information that has already been made public
Case 2:24-cv-02445-AJP-ADM Document 541 Filed 10/08/26 Page 15 of 23

-16-
either in briefings or in documents that the parties did not ask to seal or redact.
Thus, Plaintiffs fail to address the requirements and policy for concealing
information from the public. Plaintiffs also ask to seal Exhibit 9 (Doc. 497-8),
Exhibit 18 (Doc. 497-14), Exhibit 19 (Doc. 497-15), and Exhibit 20 (Doc. 497-16) for
containing medical information. Most of the information covers the same topics as
already discussed, such as Zachariah’s treatments, symptoms, and diagnoses. After
reviewing the documents, however, the Court finds that they contain some sensitive
materials that have not been disclosed to the public, such as information about
family members, unrelated medical information, and a minor’s sexual history. Thus,
the request to seal Docs. 497-1, 497-2, 497-3, 497-4, 497-8, 497-14, 497-15, and 497-
16 is denied.
The Court, however, directs Plaintiffs to consult with Defendant as to any
agreed-upon redactions of these documents within 14 days of this Order. The Court
will allow Plaintiffs to file a revised Motion to Seal or Redact for these documents,
within 21 days of this Order, to conceal only those sensitive details related to
Zachariah’s diagnoses, treatments, medical history, and sexual history that have
not been publicly disclosed and are not relied upon by either party to determine the
substantive motions still before the Court. To the extent the parties are not able to
come to an agreement, Plaintiffs must adequately set forth reasons that the
documents should be sealed. The parties can also propose other redactions, such as
a non-party’s medical information, provided a sufficient confidentiality interest is
identified and explained. Plaintiffs’ revised motion must also conform to the
Case 2:24-cv-02445-AJP-ADM Document 541 Filed 10/08/26 Page 16 of 23

-17-
requirements of D. Kan. 5.4.2(C). These documents will remain provisionally sealed
until further Order by the Court.
Plaintiffs also seek to seal their memorandum in response to Defendant’s
Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony (Doc. 497). As the Court has explained, the
briefing containing a party’s argument on a substantive motion has a heightened
public interest. Uhlig, 2024 WL 1703557, at *1. In addition, there is a diminished
confidentiality interest in what the party makes a central issue in the case.
Zachariah’s medical information regarding her treatment and diagnoses is a central
issue as the parties move to exclude each other’s expert witnesses. Information and
arguments relevant to these issues should only be concealed from the public in
extreme circumstances. Plaintiffs’ vague argument that this document contains
sensitive health information without any specificity does not meet their burden to
seal information. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request to seal Doc. 497 is denied.
In the alternative, Plaintiffs argue that redactions should be allowed for
Docs. 497-1, 497-3, and 497-16 that comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a) because these
documents contain medical information and identifying numbers. They contend that
Doc. 497-16 contains a taxpayer identification number and Zachariah’s account
number and Docs. 497-1 and 497-3 contain Zachariah’s full birthdate. In accordance
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a), Plaintiffs can redact all but the last four digits of the
taxpayer identification number and the account number and all but the year of
Zachariah’s birthdate. Plaintiffs can submit these proposed redactions with the
revised redactions regarding medical information.
Case 2:24-cv-02445-AJP-ADM Document 541 Filed 10/08/26 Page 17 of 23

-18-
2. Details of Sexual Assault
Plaintiffs also seek to seal Doc. 497-7 because it contains detailed information
about the sexual assault of a minor. Although Zachariah is no longer proceeding
under a pseudonym, there is still a privacy interest in the details of a sexual assault
especially when the events occurred when the victim was a minor. Does v. United
States Olympic Comm., 2019 WL 2992031, at *1 (D. Colo. July 9, 2019) (“[S]exual
abuse suffered by a minor is a matter of a highly sensitive and personal nature.”)
(quotation marks and citation omitted). There are details included in this document
that the Court finds to be highly sensitive. Furthermore, redactions would be
impractical because the majority of the exhibit addresses a sexual assault. Thus,
the Court grants Plaintiffs request to seal Doc. 497-7.
3. Photographs of Minors
Plaintiffs also ask to seal Doc. 497-13 and redact Doc. 497-9 “because they
contain photographs that should be restricted from public view.” (Doc. 505 at 3).
Defendant does not oppose sealing Exhibit 14 (Doc. 497-13) or redacting the non-
party minor’s face in Exhibit 10 (Doc. 497-9 at 2). Thus, the Court agrees that Doc.
497-13 should be sealed. The Court also agrees that the non-party minor’s face
should be redacted in Doc. 497-9 because she was a minor at the time the
photograph was taken and her identity is not relevant to this case. However,
Zachariah’s face is also in Doc. 497-9, and it should not be redacted because there is
no longer a privacy interest in concealing her identity, and her face has already
been made a part of the public record in this case. The Court grants Plaintiffs’
Case 2:24-cv-02445-AJP-ADM Document 541 Filed 10/08/26 Page 18 of 23

-19-
request to seal Doc. 497-13 and grants in part Plaintiffs’ request to redact Doc. 497-
9. Accordingly, Docs. 497-13 and 497-9 shall remain under seal, and Plaintiffs shall
prepare and file Doc. 497-9 with the non-party minor’s face redacted.
D. Motion to Redact (Doc. 507)
Plaintiffs EEOC and Zachariah move to redact Defendant’s Response to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude or Limit Expert Testimony (Doc. 501). Plaintiffs argue
that the redactions are needed because the filing contains highly sensitive medical
information about Zachariah, and the document contains information regarding
Zachariah’s mental health treatment and diagnoses. Upon review of the proposed
redactions, however, the Court finds that the redactions go beyond the scope of
Zachariah’s medical information. To the extent that the redactions do not relate to
Zachariah’s medical information, Plaintiffs do not meet their burden in
demonstrating that they are needed.
To the extent that the redactions relate to Zachariah’s medical information,
they also fail to meet their burden. The Court has already noted the heightened
burden on Plaintiffs. See Uhlig, 2024 WL 1703557, at *1. Plaintiffs only make a
generalized argument that all the redactions relate to Zachariah’s medical
information and therefore should be kept private. This argument is not enough to
meet their burden, and Zachariah’s diagnoses are already in the public record.
Thus, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ request to redact Defendant’s Response to
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Dr. Virani and Matthew Wester (Doc.
501). In sum, the Court denies this motion.
Case 2:24-cv-02445-AJP-ADM Document 541 Filed 10/08/26 Page 19 of 23

-20-
E. Motion to Seal and Redact (Doc. 524)
Plaintiffs EEOC and Zachariah move to seal and redact several exhibits
supporting Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
509). They move to seal Exhibits RR (Doc. 513-3) and XX (Doc. 513-4) and to redact
Exhibits HH (Doc. 513-1) and II (Doc. 513-2).
Exhibits RR (Doc. 513-3) and XX (Doc. 513-4) are identical to exhibits
discussed above in Sections III(C)(2) and III(C)(3). For those same reasons, the
Court grants Plaintiffs’ request to seal these documents.
Plaintiffs EEOC and Zachariah also move to redact Exhibits HH and II
(Docs. 513-1 and 513-2) because they contain Jane Doe’s true name. Again,
Defendant does not oppose this request. As explained above in Section III(B)(5),
redactions to preserve Jane Doe’s privacy interest in her identity are allowed.
Plaintiffs should file their proposed redactions.
In sum, the Court grants this motion.
F. Motion to Seal or Redact (Doc. 536)
Plaintiffs EEOC and Zachariah move to seal and redact Exhibits 16, 17, 18,
19, 20, 52, and 63 (Docs. 533-1, 533-2, 533-4, 533-5, 533-6, 533-7) attached to
Defendant’s reply to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 528). The
motion is unopposed. The Court has reviewed the documents and finds that
Plaintiffs meet their burden in establishing the need for these documents to be
sealed. Thus, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to seal Exhibit 52 (Doc. 533-6).
Case 2:24-cv-02445-AJP-ADM Document 541 Filed 10/08/26 Page 20 of 23

-21-
Plaintiffs also seek to redact Exhibits 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 63 (Docs. 533-1,
533-2, 533-3, 533-4, 533-5, 533-7) because they contain Jane Doe’s name. As
explained above, the parties and the Court agree that Jane Doe can proceed under a
pseudonym for now. Thus, the proposed redactions are granted.
In sum, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs EEOC and Zachariah’s
Motion to Retain Redactions in ECF 409-1 (Doc. 413) is DENIED. Clerk is directed
to unseal Docs. 409 and 409-1.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs EEOC and Zachariah’s Motion
to Seal and Redact (Doc. 489) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
The request to redact Docs. 485-4, 485-5, 485-7, and 485-24 is granted. Plaintiffs are
directed to file redactions in compliance with this order. The request to redact Docs.
480, 482 is denied. The request to seal Doc. 485-14 is denied. The request to redact
Doc. 485-15 is granted in part and denied in part. The redactions related to
Zachariah’s school records are granted, but the redactions of medical information
are denied without prejudice. The request to seal Docs. 481-2, 481-4, 481-5, 481-6,
481-7, 481-9, 487-1, 487-2, 487-3, 487-4, 487-5, 487-7, 487-9 is denied without
prejudice. Plaintiffs and Defendants are ordered to consult within 14 days of this
Order as to agreed-upon redactions of these documents and Doc. 485-15. Plaintiffs
are allowed to file a revised Motion to Seal or Redact for these documents within 21
days of this Order. If Plaintiffs fail to make such filing, the Court will issue an
Case 2:24-cv-02445-AJP-ADM Document 541 Filed 10/08/26 Page 21 of 23

-22-
Order unsealing these documents. These documents will remain provisionally
sealed until further Order by the Court.
Clerk is directed to permanently seal Docs. 485-4, 485-5, 485-7, 485-15, and
485-24. Clerk is directed to unseal Docs. 481-1, 481-3, 481-8, 481-10, 481-11, 481-12,
481-13, 481-14, 481-15, 481-16, 481-17, 481-18, 485-1, 485-2, 485-3, 485-5, 485-6,
485-8, 485-9, 485-10, 485-11, 485-12, 485-13, 485-16, 485-17, 485-18, 485-19, 485-20,
485-21, 485-22, 485-23, 485-25, 485-26, 485-27, 485-28, 487-6, 487-8, and 487-10.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs EEOC and Zachariah’s Motion
to Seal and Redact (Doc. 505) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
The request to seal Docs. 497-7 and 497-13 is granted. The request to redact Doc.
497-9 is granted. Plaintiff EEOC is directed to file redactions concealing only the
non-party minor’s face. The request to seal Docs. 497 is denied. The request to seal
Docs. 497-1, 497-2, 497-3, 497-4, 497-8, 497-14, 497-15, 497-16 is denied without
prejudice. The Court, however, directs Plaintiffs to consult with Defendant as to
agreed-upon redactions of these documents (within 14 days of this Order) and will
allow Plaintiffs to file a revised Motion to Seal or Redact for these documents within
21 days of this Order. If Plaintiffs fail to make such filing, the Court will issue an
Order unsealing these documents. These documents will remain provisionally
sealed until further Order by the Court.
Clerk is directed to permanently seal Doc. 497-7, 497-9, and 497-13. Clerk is
directed to unseal Docs. 497, 497-5, 497-6, 497-10, 497-11, and 497-12.
Case 2:24-cv-02445-AJP-ADM Document 541 Filed 10/08/26 Page 22 of 23

-23-
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs EEOC and Zachariah’s Motion
to Redact (Doc. 507) is DENIED. Clerk is directed to unseal Doc. 501.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs EEOC and Zachariah’s Motion
to Seal and Redact (Doc. 524) is GRANTED. Docs. 513-3 and 513-4 shall remain
sealed. Plaintiff EEOC is directed to file the proposed redactions for Doc. 513-1 and
513-2. Clerk is directed to permanently seal Doc. 513 and its exhibits.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs EEOC and Zachariah’s Motion
to Seal and Redact (Doc. 536) is GRANTED. Doc. 533-6 shall remain sealed.
Plaintiff EEOC is directed to file the redactions as proposed for Docs. 533-1, 533-2,
533-3, 533-4, 533-5, 533-4, 533-5, and 533-7. Clerk is directed to permanently seal
Doc. 533 and its exhibits.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 7th day of October 2026.
___________________________________
ANTHONY J. POWELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:24-cv-02445-AJP-ADM Document 541 Filed 10/08/26 Page 23 of 23