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.

Joseph v. Joseph

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

January 18, 2018

MARIE JOSEPH, Plaintiff,
v.
RONALD JOSEPH, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER CONDITIONALLY GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL (Doc. 50)

          Timothy S. Black United States District Judge

         This civil case is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to file under seal. (Doc.50).

         I. INTRODUCTION

         On July 6, 2017, Defendant Ronald Joseph (“Ron, Sr.”) filed a motion for partial summary judgment. (Doc. 44).

         On July 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed and served on opposing counsel a response (“Response”) to Ron, Sr.'s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 49). Plaintiff also filed a motion to file the Response under seal (Doc. 50). The motion states that Plaintiff's response “contains documents that have been designated as CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER pursuant to the Court's Stipulated Protective Order.” (Doc. 50 at 1). The motion does not identify which information or documents Plaintiff seeks to file under seal.

         The docket reflects that Plaintiff contacted the Clerk of Court, which restricted the Response, but recently removed it from the docket entirely.

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         A district court's decision to seal court records is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Klingenberg v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Co., 658 Fed.Appx. 202, 207 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing Shane Grp. Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 825 F.3d 299, 306 (6th Cir. 2016)). However, “the district court's decision is not accorded the deference that standard normally brings.” Id.

         That is because there is a “stark” difference between, on one hand, the propriety of allowing litigants to exchange documents in secret, and on the other hand, allowing litigants to shield from public view those documents which are ultimately relied on in the Court's adjudication. See Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305. Parties are typically entitled to a “protective order” limiting disclosure of documents in discovery upon a mere showing of good cause. Id. However, “very different considerations apply” when these materials are filed in the public record. Id.

         Unlike as to information merely exchanged between the parties, the public has a strong interest in obtaining the information contained in the court record. Id. Accordingly, the courts have long recognized a “strong presumption in favor of openness” of court records. Id. (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1180 (6th Cir. 1983)).

         Three times in the past several years the Sixth Circuit has explained that a party moving to seal court records must overcome a significant burden. See Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305-06; Klingenberg, 658 Fed.Appx. at 207-08; Rudd Equip. Co. v. John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co., 834 F.3d 589, 593-96 (6th Cir. 2016). According to the Sixth Circuit:

The burden of overcoming that presumption [of openness] is borne by the party that seeks to seal them. In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 194 (3d Cir. 2001). The burden is a heavy one: “Only the most compelling reasons can justify the non-disclosure of judicial records.” In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983). . . . And even where a party can show a compelling reason why certain documents or portions thereof should be sealed, the seal itself must be narrowly tailored to serve that reason. See, e.g., Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of California, Riverside Cnty., 464 U.S. 501, 509-11, 104 S.Ct. 819, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 (1984). The proponent of sealing therefore must “analyze in detail, document by document, the propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.” Baxter, 297 F.3d at 548.

Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305-06.

         A movant's obligation to provide compelling reasons justifying the seal exists even if the parties themselves agree the filings should be sealed. See Rudd Equip., 834 F.3d at 595 (noting the parties “could not have waived the public's First Amendment and common law right of access to court filings[]”) (citation omitted); see also In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470, 475 (6th Cir. 1983) (in reviewing a motion to seal, the district court has “an obligation to consider the rights of the public”). Simply put, this Court has an obligation ...


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.