Kasso v. City of Minneapolis

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota October 31, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Leila Kasso, Case No. 23-cv-2782 (KMM/TNL)

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

City of Minneapolis et al.,

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court, Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung, on Plaintiff Leila
Kasso’s Request in Opposition of Sealing Documents, ECF No. 104. For the reasons below,
the Court denies Plaintiff’s request.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants City of Minneapolis and City of Minneapolis
Police Department alleging employment discrimination. Pl’s Amended Complaint 1–21,
ECF No. 20. On August 23, Defendants filed a Motion Regarding Continued Sealing, ECF
No. 89. In the motion, Defendants stated that a number of documents should be sealed
because they included allegations of employee misconduct that did not result in final
discipline or data regarding Defendant’s medical condition. ECF No. 89 at 2–5. Defendant
stated that “Plaintiff’s position appears to be that evidence of others’ medical conditions
should be sealed.” Id. at 2–4. The Court granted the motion. ECF No. 100. In the order
granting the motion, the Court stated that the “Order on continued sealing becomes final
on 9/24/2024 unless further timely submissions are filed.” Id.

On September 15, Plaintiff filed a document with a docket title of “First MOTION
to Lift Stay on Permanent Seal of all Documents and Records.” ECF No. 104. In the
document, she states that she
respectfully made [her] position clear to this Court as well as
to the City of Minneapolis. All documents are public, and they
may publish as they choose. [She] request[s] only social
security numbers be redacted. [She] will seal medical
document [she] obtain[s], for which are not [hers] [sic]. No
ESI, no sealed, and no secretive items filed [sic].

Id.
II. ANALYSIS

In this action, Plaintiff is representing herself pro se. The Supreme Court has
explained that documents filed by pro se litigants are “to be liberally construed.” Erickson
v. Pardus,

551 U.S. 89, 94

 (2007) (quotation omitted). This means that a pro se litigant’s 
filing is to be construed “in a way that permits the [litigant]’s claim to be considered within 
the proper legal framework.” Stone v. Harry,

364 F.3d 912, 915

 (8th Cir. 2004) (applying 
liberal construction to a pro se litigant’s complaint).                   
    Under Local Rule 5.6(f), within 21 days after a magistrate judge enters an order 
regarding continued sealing, litigants can file a motion for further consideration by the 
magistrate judge. See also 2017 Advisory Committee Note to LR 5.6 (“After the magistrate 
judge rules on the joint motion, any party . . . whose information has been ordered unsealed 
or who otherwise objects to the magistrate judge’s ruling may file a motion for further 
consideration.” (emphasis added)).                                        

    Plaintiff filed her motion 12 days after the Court issued its order granting permanent 
sealing, which was well before the September 24 deadline to request further consideration. 
In her motion, she states that “[a]ll documents are public,” requests that “only social 
security numbers be redacted,” and emphasizes “no sealed . . . items filed [sic].” Liberally 
construing Plaintiff’s motion within a legal framework, the court interprets her motion as 
a Motion for Further Consideration under Local Rule 5.6 (f).              

    Local Rule 5.6(f) states that a “motion for further consideration is a nondispositive 
motion governed by L[ocal] R[ule] 7.1(b).” That rule lays out several requirements to bring 
a nondispositive motion. “Before filing a nondispositive motion, a party must contact the 
magistrate judge’s courtroom deputy to schedule a hearing.” LR 7.1(b) (emphasis added). 
At least two weeks before the date of the hearing on the nondispositive motion, the moving 

party must file and serve several documents simultaneously, including (A) the motion, (B) 
the notice of hearing, (C) a memorandum of law, (D) any affidavits and exhibits, (E) a 
meet-and-confer  statement,  and  (F)  a  proposed  order.  LR  7.1(b)(1).  In  addition,  “an 
editable copy” of the proposed order “must be emailed to chambers.” LR 7.1(b)(1)(F) 
(emphasis added). Finally, “a memorandum of law must be accompanying by a certificate 

executed . . . by an unrepresented party affirming that the memorandum complies with the 
[word count] limits in L[ocal] R[ule] 7.1(f). Plaintiff has failed to comply with these 
requirements for this  motion.1 See  ECF No. 104 (lacking a notice of hearing  and a 
meaningful meet-and-confer statement). As a result, the Court would be well within its 

discretion to deny Plaintiff’s motion for failure to comply with procedural rules. See O’Neil 
v. Simplicity, Inc.,

574 F.3d 501, 505

 (8th Cir. 2009) (stating that a district court does not 
abuse its discretion for denying a motion when “a plaintiff has not followed applicable 
procedural rules).                                                        
    Nevertheless, the Court continues to the merits of Plaintiff’s motion. There is a 
common-law right of access to judicial records. IDT Corp. v. eBay,

709 F.3d 1220, 1222

 

(8th Cir. 2013). The right of access, however, is not absolute but instead “requires a 
weighing of competing interests.” Webster Groves Sch. Dist. v. Pulitzer Pub. Co.,

898 F.2d 1371, 1376

 (8th Cir. 1990). Specifically, courts “must consider the degree to which sealing 
a judicial record would interfere with the interests served by the common-law right of 
access and balance that interference against the salutary interests served by maintaining 

confidentiality of the information sought to be sealed.” IDT Corp.,

709 F.3d at 1223

. 
    The personal health information of an individual is generally of a character that 
warrants sealing. See, e.g., Skky LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,

191 F. Supp. 3d 977, 981

 (D. Minn. 
2016) (stating that “personal health details” may “be subject to an order to seal”); Olson v. 



1 The Court notes that it has already explained the requirements of Local Rule 7.1 to 
Plaintiff and given her an opportunity to correctly file documents that were initially filed 
without following the proper procedural rules. ECF No. 40. The Court again reminds 
Plaintiff that she must comply with all applicable court rules. See Soliman v. Johanns,

412 F.3d 920, 922

 (8th Cir. 2005) (“Even pro se litigants must comply with court rules and 
directives.”)                                                             
Kopel, No. 14–cv–3975 (DWF/SER),

2016 WL 452132

, at *2 (D. Minn. Feb. 5, 2016) 
(Frank, J.) (sealing plaintiff's “medical records only”).                 

    But, contrary to Defendants’ argument in their Joint Motion Regarding Continued 
Sealing, ECF No. 89, allegations of misconduct against public employees that have not 
resulted in final discipline are not generally of a character that warrants sealing. Notably, 
the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) provides that both (1) “the 
existence and status of any complaints or charges against [a public employee], regardless 
of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action” and (2) “the final 

disposition of any disciplinary action” against a public employee are public information.

Minn. Stat. § 13.43

, subd. 2(a)(4), (5) (2022) (emphasis added). Moreover, even if such 
information is considered private under the MGDPA, the Act expressly contemplates that 
otherwise private information may be released in connection with judicial proceedings.

Id.

 
§ 13.43, subd. 4 (2022). In addition, such a statutory classification does not automatically 

merit an order sealing judicial proceedings. Cf. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,

447 F.3d 1172

, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Neither will it suffice to show . . . that a document merits 
sealing because it would be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information 
Act. . . . Such exempt  documents are not automatically privileged in civil discovery.” 
(citations omitted)).                                                     

    Defendants argued for the continued sealing of seven documents in their Joint 
Motion Regarding Continued Sealing. The Court has independently reviewed all seven 
documents.                                                                
    For sealed documents number 75 (corresponding to redacted document number 74-
1),  75-1 (corresponding  to  redacted document  number  74-2),  75-2  (corresponding  to 

redacted document number 74-3), 75-3 (corresponding to redacted document number 74-
4), and 75-6 (corresponding to redacted document number 74-8), Defendants stated that 
each document “should remain sealed because it contains data regarding Defendant’s 
employee’s medical condition and allegations of misconduct of employee that did not result 
in  final  discipline.”  ECF  No.  89  at  2–5.  And  for  sealed  documents  number  75-4 
(corresponding to redacted document number 74-5) and 75-5 (corresponding to redacted 

document number 75-6), Defendants stated that each document “should remain sealed 
because it contains data regarding Defendant’s employee’s medical condition.” Id. at 4. 
    Based on the Court’s review of the documents, redacted portions of each sealed 
document include information about a person’s medical condition. Compare ECF No. 75 
at 1 with ECF No. 74-1 at 1; ECF No. 75-1 at 1–3 with ECF No. 74-2 at 1–3; ECF No. 75-

2 at 1 with ECF No. 74-3 at 1; ECF No. 75-3 at 2 with ECF No. 74-4 at 2; ECF No. 75-4 
at 3–4 with ECF No. 74-5 at 3–4; ECF No. 75-5 at 3–4 with ECF No. 74-6 at 3–4; and ECF 
No. 75-6 at 18 with ECF No. 74-8 at 18. This information on a person’s medical condition 
is highly private and sensitive. The Court therefore finds that the interests in maintaining 
the  confidentiality  of  the  details  of  an  individual’s  medical  condition  outweighs  the 
common-law right of access.2 Accordingly, the Court determines that document numbers 
75, 75-1, 75-2, 75-3, 75-4, 75-6, and 75-6 shall remain sealed.           

                          III.  Conclusion                               
    For the foregoing reasons, and based on all of the files, records, and proceedings in 
the above-captioned matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT                     
    1.  Plaintiff’s  Request  in  Opposition  of  Sealing  Documents,  ECF  No.  104,  is 
      DENIED;                                                            

    2.  Docket  Numbers  75,  75-1,  75-2,  75-3,  75-4,  75-5,  and  75-6  will  remain 
      SEALED;                                                            

    3.  All prior consistent orders remain in fully force and effect; and 
    4.  Failure to comply with any provision of this order or any other prior consistent 
      order shall subject the non-complying party, non-complying counsel and/or the 
      party such counsel represents to any and all appropriate remedies, sanctions and 
      the like, including without limitation: assessment of costs, fines and attorneys’ 
      fees and disbursements; waiver of rights to object; exclusion or limitation of 
      witnesses,  testimony,  exhibits,  and  other  evidence;  striking  of  pleadings; 
      complete or partial dismissal with prejudice; entry of whole or partial default 
      judgment; and/or any other relief that this Court may from time to time deem 
      appropriate.                                                       

    IT IS SO ORDERED:                                                    

Date: October 31, 2024              /s/ Tony N. Leung___________         
                                 Tony N. Leung                           
                                 United States Magistrate Judge          
                                 District of Minnesota                   

                                     Kasso v. City of Minneapolis        
                                     Case No. 23-cv-2782 (KMM/TNL)       

2 Because the Court finds that details of Plaintiff’s medical condition should remain 
confidential, the Court does not address the merits of Defendants’ claim that documents 
number 75, 75-1, 75-2, 75-3, and 75-6 contain allegations of employee misconduct that 
should remain confidential.