Little v. Deere & Co., CV 116-061. (2017)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20171227689
Visitors: 13
Filed: Dec. 08, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 08, 2017
Summary: ORDER J. RANDAL HALL , District Judge . Before the Court is Defendant's motion to file under seal. (Doc. 27.) Therein, Defendant seeks leave to file its forthcoming memorandum of law in support of summary judgment — as well as several of its exhibits in support thereof — 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 Defe
Summary: ORDER J. RANDAL HALL , District Judge . Before the Court is Defendant's motion to file under seal. (Doc. 27.) Therein, Defendant seeks leave to file its forthcoming memorandum of law in support of summary judgment — as well as several of its exhibits in support thereof — 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 Defen..
More
ORDER
J. RANDAL HALL, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant's motion to file under seal. (Doc. 27.) Therein, Defendant seeks leave to file its forthcoming memorandum of law in support of summary judgment — as well as several of its exhibits in support thereof — 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 Defendant's motion (doc. 27) and ORDERS that Defendant's forthcoming memorandum of law in support of summary judgment and the exhibits thereto that reference or include portions of Plaintiff's personal medical records be SEALED until further order of the Court.
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.)
Source: Leagle
