Little v. Deere & Co., CV 116-061. (2018)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20180221c78
Visitors: 1
Filed: Jan. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 18, 2018
Summary: ORDER J. RANDAL HALL , Chief District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to file under seal. (Doc. 38.) Therein, Plaintiff seeks leave to file its response in opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment — as well as her response to Defendant's statement of material facts as to which it contends there exists no genuine dispute to be tried — under seal because they include or otherwise reference portions of Plaintiff's personal medical records. 1 ( Id. ) Upon due consid
Summary: ORDER J. RANDAL HALL , Chief District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to file under seal. (Doc. 38.) Therein, Plaintiff seeks leave to file its response in opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment — as well as her response to Defendant's statement of material facts as to which it contends there exists no genuine dispute to be tried — under seal because they include or otherwise reference portions of Plaintiff's personal medical records. 1 ( Id. ) Upon due conside..
More
ORDER
J. RANDAL HALL, Chief District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to file under seal. (Doc. 38.) Therein, Plaintiff seeks leave to file its response in opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment — as well as her response to Defendant's statement of material facts as to which it contends there exists no genuine dispute to be tried — under seal because they include or otherwise reference portions of Plaintiff's personal medical records.1 (Id.) Upon due consideration, the Court finds good cause to seal has been established and therefore GRANTS Plaintiff's motion (doc. 38) and ORDERS that Plaintiff's response in opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment and her response to Defendant's statement of material facts be SEALED until further order of the Court.
ORDER ENTERED.
FootNotes
1. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's medical records are relevant to the present case because Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") when it terminated her employment in October 2015. (Doc. 27, ¶ 2.) The Court granted a similar motion to seal filed by Defendant with regards to its memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment and several of its exhibits filed in support thereof. (Doc. 28.)
Source: Leagle
