Case: 21-30001 Document: 00516504084 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/11/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 11, 2022
No. 21-30001 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
June Medical Services, L.L.C., on behalf of its patients, physicians,
and staff, doing business as Hope Medical Group for Women;
John Doe 1, M.D.; John Doe 2, M.D.; Dr. John Doe 3,
M.D.,
Plaintiffs—Appellees,
versus
Courtney Phillips, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana
Department of Health and Hospitals; Jeff Landry, in his official capacity
as Attorney General of Louisiana; James E. Stewart, Sr., in his official
capacity as District Attorney for Caddo Parish,
Defendants—Appellants,
versus
Leroy Brinkley; John Doe 5,
Movants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:16-cv-444
Case: 21-30001 Document: 00516504084 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/11/2022
No. 21-30001
Before Smith, Elrod, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
On January 7, 2022, we issued a limited remand directing the district
court to “evaluate the sealing orders under the proper legal standard within
30 days.” June Med. Servs., LLC v. Phillips, 22 F.4th 512, 521–22 (5th Cir.
2022). The district court then directed the parties to confer and file a joint
memorandum on agreed-upon unsealings and documents subject to further
disagreement. The parties did so. They stipulated to the status of 154 of the
177 documents: 150 to be unsealed entirely, 2 to remain sealed, and 2 to be
redacted. Accordingly, the district court entered an order unsealing the 150
agreed-upon documents and conducting the requisite line-by-line sealing
analysis for the remaining documents, including the 23 documents still in
dispute.
The parties returned to our court, and we directed them to file letter
briefs. In its letter brief, Louisiana contends that we should unseal all but four
of the currently sealed documents—in effect removing the pseudonym order.
The plaintiffs, by contrast, argue that we should simply dismiss the appeal
and leave the sealed documents undisturbed.
We generally agree with Louisiana. We therefore remand the case to
the district court with the following instructions. All information regarding
non-parties (including non-party patients and non-party employees) should
remain redacted. The following four documents should also remain sealed:
(1) Dkt. No. 273-3, ROA.6368–70; (2) Dkt. 289-14, ROA.8432–34; (3) Dkt.
No. 247-4, ROA.4376–87; and (4) Dkt. No. 272-51, ROA.6256–69. The
remainder of the disputed documents should be unsealed, as the State has
argued. See, e.g., Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 416–21 (5th
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
2
Case: 21-30001 Document: 00516504084 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/11/2022
No. 21-30001
Cir. 2021); June Med. Servs., 22 F.4th at 519–22; Macias v. Aaron Rents, Inc.,
288 F. App’x 913, 915 (5th Cir. 2008); 2 Moore’s Federal Practice
– Civil § 10.02[c][i] (2022). The parties have seven days to comply with
this order and to ensure that the appropriate documents are sealed, unsealed,
or redacted as specified above.
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
3