From Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart’s opinion Friday in Morrison v. Delray Medical Center, Inc. (S.D. Fla.), reconsidering an earlier sealing order:
Dr. John Morrison sues multiple defendants, including Delray Medical Center (“the Hospital”) in a 14 count Complaint alleging both federal and state claims….
The redacted information … [includes] … allegedly defamatory statements about Dr. Morrison…. Dr. Morrison … argues that disclosing this information may affect his ability to practice medicine and earn a living. He further says, “The public’s interest in viewing these false and defamatory statements are of little to no importance. Unlike other cases involving the competing balance of interests test, there is no motion from a non-party to view otherwise sealed information. The potential damage to Dr. Morrison’s ability to earn a living and practice medicine substantially outweigh the abstract and unasserted interest by the public in viewing the specifics of these false statements.”
Dr. Morrison brought this lawsuit. He chose to challenge the accuracy of these statements in a public courtroom. If disclosing the allegedly-defamatory statements invades his privacy or causes him injury, it is solely the result of his own actions and decisions. Disclosing these statements will not impair court functions. They do not involve public officials or public concerns. Dr. Morrison will be able to respond to the information; he brought the defamation claim specifically so he could disprove the statements. There is no lesser alternative than unsealing.
The alleged defamatory statements are the gravamen of Dr. Morrison’s defamation and injurious falsehood claims. He cannot win on these claims without proving to a jury that the statements are not true. That process must occur in public. Likewise, the Defendants can defend themselves only by discussing these alleged statements in public. In short, it is logistically impossible to adjudicate the defamation and injurious falsehood claims without publicly discussing the allegedly-false statements.
Dr. Morrison’s other arguments also fail. First, it is irrelevant that no third party has asked to unseal the documents. Even without a third-party request, the Court must evaluate whether to exempt judicial records from the public right of access. Second, perhaps the reason no one has asked for the information is because it is under seal. The allegedly-false statements relate to the professional competence of a surgeon in the local community. Once the public and the media know that fact, they may have a substantial interest in evaluating for themselves whether the allegations are true….
Sounds quite right to me; see Fargo v. Tejas, Manhattan Telecommunications Corp. [MetTel] v. Granite Telecommunications, LLC, and Parson v. Farley. As to the other sealing questions, see the opinion.
The post No Sealing of Allegedly Defamatory Statements in Libel Lawsuit appeared first on Reason.com.
