Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

June Medical Services LLC v. Gee

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

July 31, 2019

JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a HOPE MEDICAL GROUP FOR WOMEN, on behalf of its patients, physicians and staff, ET AL.
v.
REBEKAH GEE, in her official capacity as Secretary of Health of the Louisiana Department of Health, ET AL.

          RULING AND ORDER

          BRIAN A. JACKSON JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

         Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Vacate and Unseal (Doc. 207). Plaintiffs opposed this motion. (Doc. 219). Oral argument is not required. For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion is DENIED.

         I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         The motion sub-judice arises from the Court's October 19, 2018 order sealing certain pleadings in this matter (Doe. 203). Plaintiffs John Doe 1, John Doe 2, and John Doe 3 (the "Doe Doctors") filed a motion for a Protective Order, seeking to proceed under pseudonyms due to the potential risks the Doe Doctors and those associated with them may face if their identities were publicly revealed. (Doc. 8). The Court granted that motion. (Doc. 12). Thereafter, the parties conferred and jointly petitioned the Court to memorialize the agreed upon terms of a subsequent protective order ("Second Protective Order"). (Doc. 95).

         Defendants subpoenaed the "complete files" of certain physicians from the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners ("LSBME"). (Doc. 199 at p. 2). The Magistrate Judge entered an order quashing part of the subpoena. (Id. at p. 4) Defendants then urged the District Court to review the Magistrate Judge's order, and attached multiple documents that revealed personally identifying information of two non-party abortion providing doctors ("non-Doe Doctors").

         Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to strike Defendants' motion to review the Magistrate Judge's order on the grounds that it disclosed the identities of non-Doe Doctors, in contravention of the terms of the Second Protective Order. (Doc. 95). The Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to seal all of Defendant's motion, but ordered Docs 201-1 through 201-7 be sealed until further orders of the Court. (Id.), Defendants now move for the Court to vacate its October 19, 2018 Order and unseal the documents. (Doc. 207). Plaintiffs oppose the motion. (Doc. 219).

         II. LEGAL STANDARD Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 provides that:

         (b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding.

         On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.