TUCKER v. WELLPATH LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
MICHELLE PEARSON TUCKER, 	:
individually and as administrator of 	:
the ESTATE OF CLINTON 	:
VONDELL JACKSON, 	: 	CIVIL ACTION
: 	No. 5:24-CV-215 (CAR)
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	:
:
WELLPATH, LLC; AHMED HOLT; 	:
et al., 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
:
ORDER GRANTING CONSENT MOTION TO SEAL
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Consent Motion to Seal certain personal information
contained in exhibits filed in response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The
individual Georgia Department of Corrections (“GDC”) Defendants and non-party GDC
consent to Plaintiff’s Motion. For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Consent
Motion to Seal [Doc. 128].
It is well-settled in the Eleventh Circuit that “[t]he operations of the courts and the
judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost public concern,” and the integrity of the
judiciary is maintained by the public’s right of access to court proceedings.1 “Once a matter is
brought before a court for resolution, it is no longer solely the parties’ case, but also the public’s
1 Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
Case 5:24-cv-00215-CAR Document 129 Filed 08/24/26 Page 1 of 2

case.”2 	Accordingly, “there is a presumptive right of public access to pretrial motions of a
nondiscovery nature, whether preliminary or dispositive, and the material filed in connection
therewith.”3 However, “[t]he common law right of access may be overcome by a showing of
good cause, which requires balancing the asserted right of access against the other party’s
interest in keeping the information confidential.”4 	In that regard, “[a] party's privacy or
proprietary interest in information sometimes overcomes the interest of the public in accessing
the information.”5
Here, the Court finds the non-essential personal information contained in the exhibits
overcomes the presumption in favor of public access, and good cause exists to grant the
Motion.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Consent Motion to Seal [Doc. 128].
Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1 [Doc. 119-1]; 11 [Doc. 119-11]; 16 [Doc. 119-16]; 25 [Doc. 119-25]; 27 [Doc.
119-27]; 36 [Doc. 119-36]; 40 [Doc. 119-40]; 45 [Doc. 120-5]; 74 [Doc. 120-34]; 76 [Doc. 120-36];
and 77 [Doc. 120-37] are ORDERED TO BE SEALED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file the
redacted versions of these exhibits on the docket.
SO ORDERED, this 24th day of August, 2026.
s/ C. Ashley Royal
C. ASHLEY ROYAL, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 Brown v. Advantage Eng’g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992).
3 Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246 (internal quotation omitted).
4 Id.
5 Id.
Case 5:24-cv-00215-CAR Document 129 Filed 08/24/26 Page 2 of 2