1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

BRIAN GARRETT, et al., 

Plaintiffs, Case No. 2:18-cv-692 

 

v. Judge Michael H. Watson 

 

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, Chief Magistrate Judge Deavers 

Defendant. 

 

STEVE SNYDER-HILL, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-736 

 Plaintiffs, Judge Michael H. Watson 

 v. Chief Magistrate Judge Deavers 

 

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, 

 Defendant. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

In accordance with the Court’s Order issued on May 20, 2020 (Case No. 2:18-cv-692, 

ECF No. 156), Plaintiffs in both of the above-captioned cases filed Amended Complaints on 

May 27, 2020,1

 under seal. Defendant filed a Response on June 10, 2020, stating that it had 

reviewed both Complaints for confidentiality concerns as directed. The Snyder-Hill Plaintiffs 

responded to Defendant’s confidentiality concerns on June 12, 2020. For the following reasons, 

the Court lifts the seal and directs that both pleadings be filed on the public record in their 

entirety. 

1

In Garrett, Case No. 2:18-cv-692, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (ECF 

No. 157). According to that pleading, Case Nos. 2:19-cv-5272 and 2:20-cv-1649 may be 

administratively closed. In Snyder-Hill, Case No. 2:18-cv-736, Plaintiffs filed a Second 

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 123). 

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 126 Filed: 06/23/20 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: 2368
2 

I. 

It is well established that “[e]very court has supervisory power over its own records and 

files.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). A court’s discretion to seal 

records from public inspection, however, is limited by “the presumptive right of the public to 

inspect and copy judicial documents and files[,]” which the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Sixth Circuit as described as a “long-established legal tradition.” In re Knoxville NewsSentinel Co., Inc., 723 F.2d 470, 473–74 (6th Cir. 1983); see also Brown & Williamson Tobacco 

Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1178–80 (6th Cir. 1983) (discussing the justifications for the 

“strong presumption in favor of openness”). Therefore, “[o]nly the most compelling reasons can 

justify non-disclosure of judicial records.” Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 

825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Sixth 

Circuit has indicated that exceptions fall into two categories: (1) exceptions “based on the need 

to keep order and dignity in the courtroom”; and (2) “content-based exemptions,” which “include 

certain privacy rights of participants or third parties, trade secrets, and national security.” Brown 

& Williamson Tobacco Corp., 710 F.2d at 1179 (citations omitted). 

In addition, the Sixth Circuit has recently emphasized the public’s “strong interest in 

obtaining the information contained in the Court record.” Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 305 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig., 

927 F.3d 919, 939 (6th Cir. 2019) (“‘[T]he greater the public interest in the litigation’s subject 

matter, the greater the showing necessary to overcome the presumption of access.’”) (quoting 

Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 305). Accordingly, district courts must consider “each pleading [to 

be] filed under seal or with redactions and to make a specific determination as to the necessity of 

nondisclosure in each instance” and must “bear in mind that the party seeking to file under seal 

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 126 Filed: 06/23/20 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: 2369
3 

must provide a ‘compelling reason’ to do so and demonstrate that the seal is ‘narrowly tailored to 

serve that reason.’” In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig., 927 F.3d at 940 (quoting Shane Grp., 

825 F.3d at 305). If a district court “permits a pleading to be filed under seal or with redactions, 

it shall be incumbent upon the court to adequately explain ‘why the interests in support of 

nondisclosure are compelling, why the interests supporting access are less so, and why the seal 

itself is no broader than necessary.’” Id. (quoting Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 306). 

II. 

Defendant indicates that it does not believe the pleading in Garrett, contains confidential 

information. The Court agrees. Accordingly, the Consolidated Class Action Complaint (ECF 

No. 157 in Case No. 2:18-cv-692) shall be filed on the public record without redaction.2

With respect to the Snyder-Hill pleading, Defendant identifies three paragraphs--237, 

238, and 247--that it believes are arguably protected from disclosure by Ohio Rev. Code § 

4731.22.(F)(5). In considering whether information ought to be sealed, the Sixth Circuit’s 

decision in Shane Group requires a district court to balance, among other things, the nature of the 

public’s interest in the litigation’s subject matter; whether the information sought to be sealed is 

required by statute to be maintained in confidence; and the privacy interests of innocent third 

parties. Thomas v. Nationwide Children's Hosp., Inc., No. 2:14-CV-1236, 2018 WL 1512908, at 

*2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 27, 2018). 

 The first consideration requires little discussion. The public’s interest in this case can 

only be characterized as significant. The Ohio State University is a national institution and the 

nature of Dr. Strauss’ alleged conduct has been the repeated subject of extensive news coverage 

2

The Court notes that two copies of the Consolidated Class Action Complaint were filed 

inadvertently. (ECF Nos. 157 and 159.) Accordingly, the Court will STRIKE the second filed 

pleading (ECF No. 159) as redundant. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 126 Filed: 06/23/20 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: 2370
4 

over the course of the last several years. This factor weighs strongly in favor of unsealing the 

Second Amended Complaint in its entirety. 

 The Court must also consider whether a statute requires the information sought to be 

sealed to be maintained in confidence. Thomas, 2018 WL 1512908, at *3. This factor addresses 

the crux of the issue here. 

The highlighted information relates to statements made to the State Medical Board of 

Ohio in connection with investigations of Dr. Strauss in 1996. Defendant explains that the quote 

in paragraph 237 is public information because it appears in the publicly available 1996 

investigation report. However, Defendant represents that, to its knowledge, the quote has not 

been publicly attributed to the individual identified in paragraph 237. Defendant notes that 

paragraphs 238 and 247 also identify this individual and connect the individual to statements 

made before the Medical Board. Accordingly, Defendant asserts that Ohio Rev. Code 

§ 4733.22(F)(5) may require the individual’s consent for public disclosure. Defendant 

emphasizes that it is highlighting these paragraphs “out of an abundance of caution” and cites to 

no authority in support of maintaining this information under seal beyond the language of the 

statute. 

Ohio Rev. Code § 4731.22(F)(5) provides that “a complaint, or information received by 

the board pursuant to an investigation ... is confidential and not subject to discovery in any civil 

action.” Further, the Medical Board is prohibited from “mak[ing] public the names or any other 

identifying information about [] complainants unless proper consent is given[.]” The statute also 

authorizes the admission into evidence of confidential information in a judicial proceeding, but 

requires that appropriate measures be taken “to ensure that confidentiality is maintained with 

respect to any part of the information that contains names or other identifying information about 

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 126 Filed: 06/23/20 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: 2371
5 

[] complainants whose confidentiality was protected by the state medical board when the 

information was in the board’s possession. Measures to ensure confidentiality that may be taken 

by the court include sealing its records or deleting specific information from its records.” 

This statute has been interpreted broadly to encompass a privilege of confidentiality to 

several groups, including “’investigation witnesses and any other persons whose confidentiality 

right is implicated by a Medical Board investigation.’” See State ex rel. Mahajan v. State Med. 

Bd. of Ohio, 2010-Ohio-5995, 127 Ohio St. 3d 497, 503 – 504, 940 N.E.2d 1280 (quoting State 

ex rel. Wallace v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 2000-Ohio-213, 89 Ohio St. 3d 431, 435, 732 N.E.2d 

960). The confidentiality provision may be waived, but only by the holder of the privilege. Id.; 

see also Wallace, at 435. 

The Snyder-Hill Plaintiffs essentially contend that the deponent waived any 

confidentiality privilege when he testified in this case about his statements to the Medical 

Board.3 They have provided nothing beyond argument on this issue. Moreover, the fact of 

waiver is not entirely clear under the circumstances of this case. For example, the deponent 

declined to participate in a full interview during the investigation underlying the Perkins Coie 

report; for purposes of his deposition, the Snyder-Hill Plaintiffs characterized him as a “NonCooperative Witness”; and, as a third-party, he testified in this case under subpoena. Further, 

although the Snyder-Hill Plaintiffs represent that this individual voluntarily testified, without 

objection or request for a confidentiality designation, about statements made to the Medical 

Board, the Court has no information from which it could make its own assessment as to any 

waiver. 

3

Plaintiffs frame their argument in terms of consent rather than waiver. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 126 Filed: 06/23/20 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: 2372
6 

At the same time, the Court notes that Defendant acknowledges that the quoted material 

has been public for many years. Further, the individual’s identity and position with the 

University have been discussed in previous public filings in this case. (See, e.g., ECF No. 81 in 

Case No. 2:18-cv-736). Consequently, it seems that, under these circumstances, requiring these 

portions of the Second Amended Complaint to remain under seal would not necessarily preserve 

confidentiality. However, given the breadth of Ohio’s confidentiality provisions relating to 

Medical Board investigations and the limited evidence of waiver, the Court finds that this 

consideration weighs somewhat in favor of allowing the individual’s identity set forth in the 

three paragraphs highlighted by Defendant to remain under seal. 

The final consideration regarding the privacy interests of third parties is not particularly 

applicable here. As discussed, the only privacy concerns raised relate to the individual deponent. 

The privacy interests of parties with no connection to this case are not implicated by the 

information at issue. Consequently, this consideration is neutral. 

Taking all of the above into account, the Court concludes that, despite Ohio’s strong 

statutory confidentiality provision, the public interest requires that the Second Amended 

Complaint be filed on the public record in its entirety without redaction. Secrecy may have been 

fine at earlier stages of this case, but different considerations apply at the adjudication stage. 

Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305 (citations omitted). The line between these stages is crossed once 

information is placed on the Court record. Id. As noted above, the public has significant interest 

in not only the outcome but in the conduct giving rise to this case. Undoubtedly, the allegations 

are of the type where the secrecy concerns noted in Shane Group are particularly heightened. Id. 

These concerns strongly outweigh Defendant’s suggestion that these three paragraphs may 

require protection from public disclosure. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 126 Filed: 06/23/20 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: 2373
7 

 For the reasons stated above, the Clerk is DIRECTED to file the Consolidated Class 

Action Complaint in Case No. 2:18-cv-692 (ECF No. 157) and the Second Amended Complaint 

in Case No. 2:18-cv-736 (ECF No. 123) on the public record. Responsive pleadings and replies 

shall be filed within rule thereafter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

Date: June 23, 2020 

 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 126 Filed: 06/23/20 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: 2374