In Abdelhady v. George Washington Univ., No. 22-7148 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 9, 2024), the D.C. Circuit holds that a party may immediately appeal the denial of a motion to seal summary judgment exhibits containing “private medical treatments and diagnoses” under the collateral order doctrine.
Plaintiff brought a personal injury case against the university. “In the University’s motions to dismiss and for partial summary judgment, it included several exhibits that, Ms. Abdelhady argued in a motion to seal, referenced private medical treatments and diagnoses. The District Court denied Ms. Abdelhady’s motion to seal in part.”
The D.C. Circuit vacates and remands. First addressing its jurisdiction, it holds that the appeal falls within the narrow exception provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1291, termed the collateral order doctrine. The “small category” of collateral orders that are reviewable under Section 1291 “includes only decisions that are conclusive, that resolve important questions separate from the merits, and that are effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment in the underlying action.” The first two prongs were resolve in plaintiff’s favor.
“Therefore, we are left with one question: Is an appeal of an order denying a motion to seal documents referencing medical treatments and diagnoses ‘effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment in the underlying action’?” The panel holds that it is, at least in the present setting of sensitive medical information. “Undoubtedly, individuals generally have a strong interest in keeping their medical treatments and diagnoses private . . . . Indeed, the University agrees that individuals possess a strong interest in keeping their medical diagnoses and treatments private.”
“Given the strength of this interest, we conclude that maintaining one’s privacy in medical treatments and diagnoses is a value of ‘high order’ that warrants immediate appellate review.” The panel notes, though, the limited scope of the holding. “We are not deciding whether the collateral order doctrine categorically applies to any order denying a motion to seal. While we recognize that there is a circuit split on this issue, we have no occasion to weigh in until resolution of the issue is necessary to our decision and the issue is fully and adequately briefed.”
The panel vacates and remands the order for further development of the record. “[W]e cannot determine whether the District Court considered the need, if any, for public access to the documents that [plaintiff] sought to seal, and whether the District Court adequately weighed both [her] interest in medical privacy and the extent of previous public access to each of the records at issue.”
Paul Mollica's Federal Courts Blog 