UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

United States of America and 

State of Michigan, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

W.A. Foote Memorial Hospital, 

d/b/a Allegiance Health, 

Defendant. 

________________________________/

Case No. 15-cv-12311 

Judith E. Levy 

United States District Judge 

Mag. Judge David R. Grand 

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ CONSENT 

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL [72] WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

AND ORDERING PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE BY JANUARY 

27, 2017, WHY THEIR COMBINED CROSS-MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE 

UNSEALED 

 Plaintiffs United States of America and State of Michigan filed a 

consent motion for leave to file under seal its combined cross-motion for 

summary judgment and response to defendant Allegiance Health’s 

motion for partial summary judgment. (Dkt. 72.) For the same 

reasons that the Court previously denied defendant’s motion to seal (see 

Dkt. 66), the Court also denies this one. 

5:15-cv-12311-JEL-DRG Doc # 76 Filed 01/23/17 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1519
2 

 The Court cannot permit the sealing of documents merely because 

the parties agreed to keep such documents confidential pursuant to a 

protective order during discovery. “[T]here is a stark difference 

between so-called ‘protective orders’ entered pursuant to the discovery 

provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, on the one hand, and 

orders to seal court records, on the other.” Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue 

Cross Blue Shield, 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016). Although 

“[s]ecrecy is fine at the discovery stage, before the material enters the 

judicial record,” at “the adjudication stage, [] very different 

considerations apply.” Id. (quoting Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 

F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002); Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880, 893 (2d Cir. 

1982)). That the parties consented to seal is insufficient reason to do so. 

See id. at 305-06. 

 Plaintiffs are directed to review the Court’s previous order 

denying defendant’s motion to seal and order to show cause. (Dkt. 66.) 

Plaintiffs’ combined cross-motion and response (Dkt. 74) will be 

unsealed if plaintiffs do not show cause by January 27, 2017, as to why 

they should not be unsealed. 

5:15-cv-12311-JEL-DRG Doc # 76 Filed 01/23/17 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1520
3 

 Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion to seal (Dkt. 72) is DENIED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

 Plaintiffs are ordered to show cause by January 27, 2017, why 

their combined cross-motion and response (Dkt. 74) should not be 

unsealed. Defendant Allegiance Health is invited to also submit a 

response at that time. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 23, 2017 s/Judith E. Levy 

Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY 

United States District Judge 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s 

ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on January 23, 2017. 

s/Felicia M. Moses 

FELICIA M. MOSES 

Case Manager 

5:15-cv-12311-JEL-DRG Doc # 76 Filed 01/23/17 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1521