IN THE STATE COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA
*
PATRICK C. DESMOND and MARY C.*
DESMOND, Individually, and MARY C.*
DESMOND, As Administratrix of the *
Estate of Patrick W. Desmond, *
Plaintiffs, *
*
vs. *

NARCONON OF GEORGIA, INC., *
DELGADO DEVELOPMENT, INC., *
SOVEREIGN PLACE, LLC,

SOVEREIGN PLACE APARTMENT *
MANAGEMENT, INC., LISA *
CAROLINA ROBBINS, M.D., THE *
ROBBINS GROUP, INC., and *
NARCONON INTERNATIONAL,

Defendants. *
*
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-A-28641-2
ORDER
The above-styled case came before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Unseal
Documents, Defendant Narconon of Georgia's Motion to Keep Certain Documents Filed
With the Court Under Seal, Defendant Narconon International's Emergency Motion to
Have Exhibit "B" to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Filing Withdrawn and Filed Under Seal, and
Defendant Narconon Of Georgia, Inc.'s Emergency Motion to Have Exhibit "B" to
Plaintiffs' Supplemental Filing Withdrawn and Filed Under Seal and Protect Documents
Recently Produced Pursuant to Court Order Under Seal. At issue are documents which
were produced by Narconon of Georgia, Inc. and Narconon International (collectively,
"the Narconon defendants") during discovery and subsequently attached as exhibits to
pleadings by Plaintiffs.
http://ReachingForTheTippingPoint.net
On April16, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a document headed "Filing Under Seal"
accompanied by a sealed envelope containing numerous documents which are now in
dispute.
1
Narconon of Georgia, Inc. asks the Court to order that the portion of the
record containing the above-described documents remain sealed, while Plaintiffs argue
that it would be inappropriate under the circumstances of this case to require the
documents to be kept under seal.
At issue in the two Emergency Motions is "Exhibit B" to Plaintiffs' September 7,
2012 Supplemental Filing in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions Against
Defendant Narconon of Georgia. The Narconon defendants ask the Court to order that
the exhibit be sealed. Plaintiffs oppose the Motions.
"In Georgia, there is a public right of access to court records, unless such
access is restricted either by law or by the procedures set forth in Uniform Superior
Court Rule 21." In reMotion of the Atlanta-Journal-Constitution, 271 Ga. 436, 437
(1999). The Rule provides that
Up!;>n motion by any party ... or upon the court's own motion, after
hearing, the court may limit access to court files .... The order of limitation
shall specify the part of the file to which access is limited, the nature and
duration of the limitation, and the reason for the limitation. An order
limiting access shall not be granted except upon a finding that the harm
otherwise resulting to the privacy of a person in interest clearly outweighs
the public interest.
Unif. Sup. R. 21.1 -21.2 (emphasis added). Importantly, trial courts "may restrict or
prohibit access to court records only if they do so in compliance with the requirements
of Rule 21." Atlanta-Journal-Constitution, supra, 271 Ga. at 437.
As indicated by Rule 21, a party seeking to seal court records carries the
burden of demonstrating that the harm otherwise resulting to his or her
1
This filing was made pursuant to an oral instmction from the Court, but there was no written order pursuant to
Unif. Sup. Ct. R. 21 allowing filing under seal.
2
http://ReachingForTheTippingPoint.net
privacy clearly outweighs the public's substantial interest in access to the
records. Correspondingly, the trial court is obligated to weigh the harm to
the party's privacy interest that will result from not sealing the records
against the harm to the public's right of access that will result from sealing
the records. Before it is authorized to seal court records, the trial court
must make factual findings which lead it to conclude as a matter of law
that the former clearly outweighs the latter .
. . . . By their nature, civil lawsuits quite often cause litigants to experience
an invasion of privacy and resulting embarrassment, yet that fact alone
does not permit trial courts to routinely seal court records. In an order
sealing a court record, a trial court must set forth factual findings that
explain how a privacy invasion that may be suffered by a party or parties
seeking to seal a record differs from the type of privacy invasion that is
suffered by all parties in civil suits.
ld., 271 Ga. 436, 437-438 (citations omitted).
In this case, after reviewing the written submissions of the parties, the arguments
presented by counsel at the July 19, 2012 hearing, the applicable law, and the
documents at issue, the Court finds that the only documents as to which there is a
privacy interest clearly outweighing the general public right of access to court records
are the student file of Brad Taylor, and other documents to the extent that they contain
personally identifying information regarding former students of Narconon of Georgia,
Inc. Individuals have an important privacy interest in their medical and drug treatment
records, as is recognized by both federal and Georgia law. See, e.g. the Health
Insurance Portability and Accessibility Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") Privacy Rule, 45 CFR
160.501, et seq; 42 USC 290ee-3; O.C.G.A. 24-9-40. The Court finds that the
potential harm to the privacy of former students who are not parties to this case, if
records of their drug and/or alcohol treatment at Narconon of Georgia, Inc. were made
public, clearly outweighs any public interest in examination of the open court records of
the litigation between the parties.
3
http://ReachingForTheTippingPoint.net
Other than Brad Taylor's student file and the personal, identifying information of
other former students (e.g. names, dates of birth, social security numbers, addresses,
and phone numbers), the Court finds no compelling privacy interest of any defendant or
of any nonparty that would outweigh the general public right to open access to court
records as to any of the documents in Plaintiffs' April 16th, 2012 filing or in Exhibit B to
Plaintiffs' September 7, 2012 pleading. Because there was no written order authorizing
the filing under seal, and because there is no basis in Georgia law for the documents at
issue to be filed under seal, it hereby is ORDERED that:
1. The documents purportedly filed "under seal" by Plaintiffs on April 16th, 2012,
shall be removed by the Clerk of Court from the record of this case and
returned to the filing party; and
2. Plaintiffs may refile the documents, with the following instructions:
a) Brad Taylor's student file may be filed only under seal; and
b) the following information SHALL BE REDACTED from any of the
remaining documents before they are filed:
i) any reference to any specifically identified non-party individual as
a student or former student of Narconon of Georgia, Inc.; and
ii) any personally identifying information, including but not limited
to names, dates of birth, social security numbers, telephone numbers, e-
mail addresses and/or home addresses, of students and/or former
students of Narconon of Georgia who are not parties to this case.
ALL PARTIES TO THIS CASE ARE EXPRESSLY ORDERED NOT TO FILE ANY
DOCUMENTS CONTAINING THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED INFORMATION WITHOUT
FIRST MAKING THE REDACTIONS SPECIFIED HEREIN.
4
http://ReachingForTheTippingPoint.net
Defendant Narconon International's Emergency Motion to Have Exhibit "B" to
Plaintiffs' Supplemental Filing Withdrawn and Filed Under Seal and Defendant
Narconon Of Georgia, Inc.'s Emergency Motion to Have Exhibit "B" to Plaintiffs'
Supplemental Filing Withdrawn and Filed Under Seal and Protect Documents Recently
Produced Pursuant to Court Order Under Seal hereby are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this J.Q_'-f1cray of September, 2012.

STATE COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY
cc: Counsel of record
Clerk's File
5
http://ReachingForTheTippingPoint.net