with Plaintiffs’ unique Facebook ID, linked their private health information to their specific profiles on Facebook. Allegedly, this occurred without Plaintiffs’ consent or knowledge, and was done for the commercial exploitation of patient confidential health information. Plaintiffs assert nine causes of action: (1) Violation of the Minnesota Health Records Act (Minn. Stat. § 144.291, et seq.); (2) Invasion of Privacy; (3) Breach of

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Evans v. Krook · 2023 1 citation

This matter is before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Motion for Continued Sealing (Dkt. 303) pursuant to Local Rule 5.6 concerning documents filed under seal relating to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 231), Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Dr. Justin King (Dkt. 246), and Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the Testimony of State of Minnesota Experts Jeffrey Noble, Stuart Robinson and Derrick Hacker (Dkt. 251). The parties agree or otherwise do not object to the continued sealing of Docket Entries 235, 247, 256, 258, 260, 261, 263, 265, and 266. (Dkt. 203 at 3-6.) “The fact that a document has been designated as confidential under a protective order alone is not a valid basis to keep the document under seal indefinitely for the purposes of Local Rule 5.6(d), which governs motions for further consideration of sealing in this District.” Nagel v. United Food & Com. Workers Union, No. 18-CV-1053 (WMW/ECW), 2020 WL 6145111, at *1 (D. Minn. Oct. 20, 2020) (citing Micks v. Gurstel Law Firm, P.C., No. 17- CV-4659 (ECT/ECW), 2019 WL 220146, at *1 (D. Minn. Jan. 16, 2019)). The parties request that Docket Entries 235, 247, 256, 258, 260, 261, 263, 265, and 266 remain sealed because they contain confidential medical information pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 144.291 and 13.384, contain a birth date, and are designated as “Confidential” under the protective order governing this case. The parties filed redacted copies of Docket Entries 247, 256, 258, 261, 263, and 266 at entries 248, 257, 259, 262, 264, and 267 respectively. Based on the parties’ representations and agreement, and the Court’s review of the

Furzland v. Baumli · 2022 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.