In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

No. 19-3212

BRENDA MITZE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 1:13-c-444 — William C. Griesbach, Judge.

____________________

SUBMITTED JUNE 22, 2020* — DECIDED JULY 31, 2020

____________________

Before RIPPLE, HAMILTON, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Years after Brenda Mitze unsuccessfully appealed the denial of her application for social security benefits, she moved to seal court decisions and other records, 

* We have agreed to decide this case without oral argument because

the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, 

and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(C).
2 No. 19-3212

claiming that their publication violated her right to keep her 

medical information private. The district court denied the motion and we affirm.

I

We omit the details that led Mitze to apply for disability 

benefits in 2009, as they are unnecessary to the disposition of 

this appeal. The Commissioner found she was not disabled 

and denied her application. Suffice it to say she was unable to 

establish that a medically determinable impairment precluded her from engaging in past relevant work or other gainful employment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1505; see also Bird v. Berryhill, 847 F.3d 911, 913 (7th Cir. 2017). On review the district 

court upheld the Commissioner’s decision. We did too.

See Mitze v. Colvin, 782 F.3d 879 (7th Cir. 2015). 

Several years later, Mitze filed a motion to seal her “medical information . . . and all other information pertaining to 

[her] case.” She complained of “harassing phone calls from

solicitors” who knew her personal medical information because the courts had “publicized” it by issuing opinions announcing the affirmance of the ALJ’s decision. 

The district court denied Mitze’s motion. It first noted that 

remote electronic access to filings containing Mitze’s medical 

records already was limited to the parties and their attorneys. 

See FED. R. CIV. P. 5.2(c). (Full access, however, is available to 

the public at the courthouse. See id.) To the extent that Mitze

wished to seal the district and appellate court opinions—both 

of which recounted her medical facts in detail—the district 

court determined she offered no reason to overturn the 

“long- standing tradition” of granting public access to the 

courts’ decisions. Finally, the district court concluded that it 
No. 19-3212 3

had no authority to require news outlets to remove articles 

about those decisions from the internet. 

On appeal, Mitze renews her concerns that medical salespeople have targeted her because of the publication of the details of her case. She adds not only that she and her children 

have experienced social stigma, but also that thieves broke 

into her home to steal pain medication, which publicly available documents revealed that she had been prescribed. Mitze

attached to her brief the opinions of this court and the district 

court, as well as online news articles reporting on those decisions, and we understand her objections to pertain to the information in those documents. 

II

A

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

the motion to seal its own order affirming the ALJ’s decision.

See County Materials Corp. v. Allan Block Corp., 502 F.3d 730, 

739 (7th Cir. 2007). As the district court explained, a strong 

presumption exists in favor of publishing dispositional orders. See Hicklin Eng'g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 348–49 

(7th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by RTP LLC v. ORIX 

Real Estate Capital, 827 F.3d 689, 691–92 (7th Cir. 2016). Even 

in cases involving substantial countervailing privacy interests 

such as state secrets, trade secrets, and attorney- client privilege, courts have opted for redacting instead of sealing the order or opinion. See Hicklin, 439 F.3d at 3 49 (“We hope never 

to encounter another sealed opinion.”); Pepsico, Inc. v. Redmond, 46 F.3d 29, 30 (7th Cir. 1995) (Easterbrook, J., in chambers) (noting that even in cases involving issues of national 

security, a “sealed opinion and order” is barely imaginable). 
4 No. 19-3212

Further, to the extent that Mitze asked the district court to 

seal our opinion, she misdirected her motion, for only we can 

consider such a request. “[E]very document filed . . . by this 

court . . . is in the public record unless a judge of this court

orders it to be sealed.” UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 

THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT OPERATING PROCEDURE 10(a) (Dec. 1, 

2015) (emphasis added). We do not recommend that Mitze refile her motion at this stage, however, as the same reasoning 

for denying her request to seal the district court’s decision 

would apply equally to our opinion.

B

Balancing the public’s right to transparent court proceedings and a litigant’s personal privacy interests is difficult, particularly when it comes to those seeking benefits based on 

health concerns. We sympathize with a claimant who feels as 

though her medical information should not be publicized

simply because she chooses to avail herself of her right to judicial review. It might be that the existing remedies of proceeding anonymously, requesting redactions, or sealing records fall short of what is needed in the social security context.

To be sure, the public has “a right to know who is using 

[its] courts.” Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisconsin, 

112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 1997). Under the current standard, 

a plaintiff wishing to proceed anonymously must rebut the 

presumption that parties’ identities are public information by 

showing that her need for anonymity outweighs the harm of 

concealment. See Doe v. City of Chicago, 360 F.3d 667, 669 

(7th Cir. 2004). But we question whether a uniform practice of 

social security opinions bearing only claimants’ initials would 

negatively impact the government or public interest in any 

meaningful way. 
No. 19-3212 5

We leave that balancing for another day. All we need to

say in the case before us is that it is too late for Mitze. Given 

everything that has transpired over the years, we cannot revisit the application of these standard practices regarding the 

publication of judicial decisions and orders in social security 

matters. 

Mitze’s circumstances fall outside the “very few categories” for which we have recognized that confidentiality is appropriate. Baxter Int'l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 546 

(7th Cir. 2002) (Easterbrook, J., in chambers); see also Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 

2006) (“[E]mbarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal 

its records.”). When unsuccessful applicants for disability 

benefits seek judicial review, they can expect (at least under 

today’s practices) that the medical basis of the claim will become public. In such cases, federal courts have a responsibility to review the decision of an administrative law judge to 

determine whether there is substantial evidence—primarily 

medical evidence—in the administrative record to support 

the decision. See Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 

(2019). We do so in reasoned decisions issued to the parties 

and made available to the public. 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure draw a line at protecting medical records themselves, and redaction of personal 

identifying information such as social security numbers is required. See FED. R. CIV. P. 5.2(a), (c); see also 20 C.F.R. 

§ 401.115 (describing Social Security Administration guidelines for disclosing private information). But mere discussion 

of the factual basis for a disability claim is not grounds for 

preventing the publication of judicial decisions. 
6 No. 19-3212

III

Mitze’s two remaining arguments also fail. News outlets

have the right to publish information obtained from public 

court records, so we cannot order an outlet to remove from its 

website articles reporting on the decisions in her case. See

Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 609 (1978). And 

to the extent Mitze argues that the courts or the press making 

the details of her case public violates the Health Insurance 

Portability and Accountability Act, tit. II, § 262(a), 

42 U.S.C. § 1320d-6 (1996), she has not explained how. The 

Act regulates the disclosure of information by only healthcare providers and their affiliates. See United States v. Bek, 

493 F.3d 790, 802 (7th Cir. 2007); 45 C.F.R. § 160.103 (excluding “government agency . . . collecting protected health information” to determine eligibility for public benefits). 

For these reasons, we AFFIRM.