1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO FILE PORTIONS OF 

CERTAIN TRANSCRIPTS AND MOTIONS UNDER SEAL

Pursuant to the Court’s Order, ECF No. 53, and to Local Rule 5.2.1(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 

5.2(d) and (e), Plaintiffs respectfully move the Court to seal limited portions of each Plaintiff’s 

deposition transcript. Plaintiffs request narrow redactions to the publically-filed transcripts. 

Disclosure of the information Plaintiffs seek to seal would put their privacy and safety at risk, and 

the public interest in that particular information is minor. 

Background & Specific Relief Sought

The crux of Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is that they are harmed when they are required to disclose 

their status as transgender people to others. As transgender people, Plaintiffs are members of a 

stigmatized group at uniquely high risk of experiencing discrimination, harassment, and even 

physical violence due solely to their gender identities. As this Court observed, “[c]ourts across the 

United States have explicitly acknowledged the general hostility and violence affecting the 

transgender population for at least the last decade.” Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 

47 at 15-16 (collecting cases). The disclosure of such deeply personal information is itself 

traumatic.

STACIE RAY,

et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v.

AMY ACTON,

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:18-cv-00272

Judge: Michael Watson

Magistrate Judge: Chelsey Vascura

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 54 Filed: 01/09/20 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 334
2

Ironically, Plaintiffs cannot petition this Court to protect their constitutional right to privacy 

as recognized by Kallstrom v City of Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055 (6th Cir. 1998) and Bloch v Ribar, 

156 F.3d 673 (6th Cir. 1998) without disclosing certain intimate facts about their transgender status 

on the Court’s public docket. Plaintiffs entered into a Protective Order in discovery (ECF No. 34) 

based on their well-founded fears that public disclosure of personal identifying information, as 

well as private information about their bodies and medical histories, puts them at significant risk

of physical and emotional harm. 

Now, at summary judgment, it is likely that both parties will cite to the Plaintiffs’ 

deposition transcripts, and therefore each Plaintiff’s entire transcript must be filed on the public 

docket. Some of the deposition material is highly personal, immaterial to the litigation, and of 

limited public interest. Plaintiffs seek to redact from public view the following limited and 

immaterial portions of their deposition transcripts: 1) personal identifying information such as

private email addresses and home addresses of themselves and third-party family members and 

friends; and 2) private medical information such as discussion of the Plaintiffs’ genitals, 

chromosomes, and medical care they have received or are receiving related to their transgender 

status. 

Because the information Plaintiffs seek to redact is largely irrelevant to the dispute, 

Plaintiffs believe it is unlikely that either party will ultimately need to cite to the redacted portions 

of these transcripts in briefing. But in an abundance of caution, Plaintiffs also request that to the 

extent any briefing does cite sealed material, the Court also allow that briefing to be redacted on 

the public docket. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 54 Filed: 01/09/20 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: 335
3

Both parties agree that the information that Plaintiffs seek to be redacted is 

confidential. See Joint Protective Order, ECF No. 34, and Joint Motion, ECF No. 52. The parties 

have now conferred regarding this Motion and counsel for Defendants does not oppose it. 

Law & Argument

Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(d) and (e) allow this Court to provide protection for private information 

in court filings by allowing redactions in addition to those mandated by Rule 5.2(a). According to 

the Rule Advisory Committee, these protections are available, for good cause, because “[i]t may 

also be necessary to protect information not covered by the redaction requirement...in a particular 

case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 Advisory Committee’s Notes (2007). Personal identifying information 

and other sensitive, private information, including confidential medical information, is the type of 

information that Courts recognize good cause to redact under Rule 5.2(d) and (e). See, e.g. United 

States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 491-2 (4th Cir. 2018) (ordering limited redaction of “private and 

personal details” about criminal defendant and his family; finding “an interest in protecting the 

physical and psychological well-being of individuals related to the litigation...may justify 

restricting access” to public filings). And this Court has frequently allowed for narrow, thoughtful 

redactions to sensitive information as an approach to a motion to seal. See, e.g., Peloe v. University 

of Cincinnati, No. 1:14-cv-404, 2014 WL 5448868 at *1-2 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 23, 2014) (ordering 

partial redaction of Plaintiffs’ sensitive identifying information); In re Ohio Execution Protocol 

Litigation, No. 2:11-cv-1016, 2017 WL 2262560 at *1-4 (S.D. Ohio May 24, 2017). Here, 

Plaintiffs’ proposed narrow redactions would allow the public to view every part of the deposition 

transcripts that is material to the case. The only information Plaintiffs seek to seal is that which 

contains identifying information, and invasive questioning about their bodies and their medical 

histories. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 54 Filed: 01/09/20 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: 336
4

Moreover, the Plaintiffs’ privacy interests here seriously outweigh the public interest in 

accessing such limited, personal information unrelated to the central dispute in the case. As this 

Court and other Courts have recognized, “the excruciatingly private and intimate nature of 

transsexualism, for persons who wish to preserve privacy in the matter, is really beyond debate.” 

Order, ECF No. 47 at 23, citing Powell v. Schriver, 175 F.3d 108, 111 (2d Cir. 1999); see also 

K.L. v. State, No. 3AN-11-05431 CI, 2012 WL 2685183, at *6 (Alaska Super. Ct. Mar. 12, 2012); 

Love v. Johnson, 146 F. Supp. 3d 848, 856 (E.D. Mich. 2015). “[T]ranssexualism is the unusual 

condition that is likely to provoke both an intense desire to preserve one’s medical confidentiality, 

as well as hostility and intolerance from others.” Powell, 175 F.3d at 111. Revealing explicit 

personal information about their bodies and their medical treatment related to their transgender 

status would invade the Plaintiffs’ privacy and put them at risk of harm. Especially given that the 

redactions sought are narrow here, on balance, this is the unique instance where Plaintiffs’ 

“interests of privacy outweigh the public’s right to know.” In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., 723 

F.2d 470, 474 (6th Cir. 1983). 

Dated January 9, 2020 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Elizabeth Bonham

Gabriel Arkles* (New York Bar No. 4391918)

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 

125 Broad St. 

New York, NY 10004 

Phone: (212) 549-2569 

Facsimile: (212) 549-2650 

Email: garkles@aclu.org

Kara Ingelhart* (Illinois Bar No. 6321949) 

Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund 

105 W. Adams St., 26th Fl. 

Chicago, IL 60603 

Phone: (312) 663-4413

Elizabeth Bonham (0093733) 

Freda Levenson (0045916) 

Susan Becker (0010205) 

ACLU of Ohio 

4506 Chester Ave. 

Cleveland, OH 44103 

Phone: (614) 469-3200 

Facsimile: (614) 469-3361 

Email: flevenson@acluohio.org 

Email: sbecker@acluohio.org 

Email: ebonham@acluohio.org 

David Carey (0088787)

A proposed order is attached to this Motion.

Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 54 Filed: 01/09/20 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: 337
5

Facsimile: (312) 663-4307

Email: kingelhart@lambdalegal.org

Peter C. Renn* (California Bar No. 247633)

Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund

4221 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 280

Los Angeles, CA 90010

Phone: (213) 382-7600

Facsimile: (213) 351-6050

Email: prenn@lambdalegal.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

*Admitted Pro Hac Vice

ACLU of Ohio Foundation

1108 City Park Avenue

Columbus, OH 43206

Phone: 614-586-1969

Facsimile: 614-586-1974

Email: dcarey@acluohio.org

John Knight* (Illinois Bar No. 6201433)

American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois

180 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2300

Chicago, IL 60601

Phone: (312) 201-9740

Facsimile: (312) 288-5225

Email: jknight@aclu-il.org

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on January 9, 2020, I filed the foregoing electronically. Notice of this filing

will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access 

this filing through the Court’s system.

/s/ Elizabeth Bonham

Elizabeth Bonham (0093733)

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 54 Filed: 01/09/20 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: 338