Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Westedt v. Franklin

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

May 23, 2016

JOSHUA L. WESTEDT, Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. DARRYL FRANKLIN, Defendant.

          ORDER

          WILLIAM E. DUFFIN, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This matter is now before the court on defendant Darryl Franklin’s motion to seal documents and several motions filed by plaintiff Joshua Westedt.

         A. Motions to Seal Documents

         On February 29, 2016, in connection with his motion for summary judgment Franklin filed a motion to seal documents. He states that he would not normally file medical records under seal in a claim such as this one but Westedt specifically requested that Franklin’s counsel file Westedt’s medical records under seal.

         On March 7, 2016, Westedt filed his own motion to seal documents. (ECF No. 70.) He asks the court to seal several paragraphs in the defendants’ Proposed Findings of Fact (ECF No. 63) and several paragraphs in the Declaration of Deborah Walrath (ECF No. 61). According to Westedt, these portions of the subject documents disclose health information gained from medical records protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

         Before sealing any part of the record the court must make a determination of good cause. Citizens First Nat’l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 944 (7th Cir. 1999); Gen. L.R. 79(d)(3) (E.D. Wis.). Although the parties agree to sealing Westedt’s medical records, it is improper to delegate that decision to the parties by giving them a virtual carte blanche to seal whatever portions of the record they want to seal. Id. “The parties to a lawsuit are not the only people who have a legitimate interest in the record compiled in a legal proceeding.” Id.

         The court recognizes Westedt’s concerns regarding the availability of his medical information in a public forum. The court concludes that good cause exists to place Westedt’s certified medical records under seal, but the good cause does not extend to those portions of the records so relevant to Westedt’s claim that they have been cited or quoted by the parties or the court in other documents.

         Therefore, the court will fashion a hybrid remedy. To the extent that the information from the medical records is incorporated into other documents filed by the parties or orders issued by this court, that information will remain visible to the public. The court otherwise will grant Franklin’s motion to seal the medical records themselves and deny Westedt’s motion to seal portions of Franklin’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Walrath’s Declaration.

         B. Motion to Dismiss Claim for Denial of Medical Treatment

         Westedt filed a motion on March 16, 2016, asking the court to dismiss with prejudice his claim for denial of medical treatment. Westedt admits that he is unable to meet his burden of proof on this claim. Alternatively, Westedt says that he will not contest entry of summary judgment on this claim. The court will grant this motion and when deciding Franklin’s motion for summary judgment will consider only the excessive force claim.

         C. Motions for Extension of Time

         On March 23, 2016, Westedt filed a motion for extension of time asking for an extension of his deadline to respond to Franklin’s motion for summary judgment to May 13, 2016. He also asked for an actual due date so that he could be eligible for extra law library time. Westedt represented that the library hours were cut back and he needed additional time to prepare his response.

         The court concludes that Westedt’s motion sets forth good cause to extend his time to respond to Franklin’s motion for summary judgment and will grant the motion and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.