# Downes v. Illinois State University

> District Court, C.D. Illinois · August 30, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10136849

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, C.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** August 30, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10136849

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

MEREDITH DOWNES, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 19-1411
)
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF ILLINOIS )
STATE UNIVERSITY, )
)
Defendant. )

ORDER AND OPINION
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Seal [46]. As explained below,
Defendant’s Motion to Seal is denied.
Defendant seeks to seal certain exhibits, explaining that there is information about salaries
and raises of Plaintiff and other individual at Illinois State University contained in those exhibits.
Despite the parties agreeing that the documents should be confidential, they have not explained
why, in the context of filing a dispositive motion, the documents should remain hidden from public
view. As explained below, the parties have not met their burden to demonstrate that these
documents should be sealed.
There is a strong presumption toward public disclosure of court files and documents. See
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 603 (1982) (discussing right of access to
criminal trials under the First Amendment); In re Specht, 622 F.3d 697, 701 (7th Cir. 2010)
(“Documents that affect the disposition of federal litigation are presumptively open to public view,
even if the litigants strongly prefer secrecy”). Indeed, the “public at large pays for the courts and
therefore has an interest in what goes on at all stages of a judicial proceeding.” Citizens First Nat’l
Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 945 (7th Cir. 1999) (internal citations
omitted). Courts are the primary representative of the public and cannot simply “rubber stamp”
agreements to seal parts of the record. Citizens First, rubber . Many litigants “would prefer that
the subject of the case [ . . . ] be kept from the curious (including its business rivals and customers),
but the tradition that litigation is open to the public is of very long standing.” Union Oil Co. of

California v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567 (7th Cir. 2000).
The Seventh Circuit has further clarified that while secrecy is fine at the discovery stage,
documents that “influence or underpin the judicial decision are open to public inspection unless
they meet the definition of trade secrets or other categories of bona fide long-term confidentiality.”
Baxter Int'l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs, 297 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002) (internal citations omitted); see
also Goesel v. Boley Intern. (H.K.) Ltd., 738 F.3d 831, 833 (7th Cir. 2013) (the presumption of
access applies to material that form the basis of the dispute and the court’s resolution “other
material that may have crept into the record” are not subject to the presumption). In the Seventh
Circuit, in civil litigation, generally only trade secrets, information covered by a recognized
privilege, and information required by statute to be maintained in confidence is entitled to be kept

secret. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 297 F.3d at 545–46; In re Specht, 622 F.3d 697 at 701(strong presumption
in favor of open access to court documents “unless a statute, rule, or privilege justifies
confidentiality.”)
Defendant argues that the exhibits contain salary information and were labelled as
confidential pursuant to an agreed protective order. This, however, does not meet one of the narrow
classes of material subject to seal. The parties’ preference for privacy does not trump the public
interest in the case. “People who want secrecy should opt for arbitration.” Union Oil Co. 220 F.3d
at 568. Defendant must present a more compelling reason to keep those documents sealed.
Additionally, Defendant’s suggestion that entire depositions remain sealed due to what appears to
be a minimal amount of information that Defendant seeks to shield from public view would not be
allowable even if there were legitimate information subject to seal. Defendant’s preference to
avoid redaction is also not a reason to keep information that will influence the Court’s decision
from public view.

Finally, Defendant did not comply with Local Rule 5.1 that requires that the motion explain
how the document meets the legal standard for filing sealed documents and the sealed document
must be filed contemporaneously under seal.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to Seal [46] is DENIED.
Defendant must file the documents in the normal fashion as an unsealed document on or before
September 9, 2022 if Defendant wishes for the Court to consider those documents.
ENTERED this 30th day of August 2022.
/s/ Michael M. Mihm
Michael M. Mihm
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10136849. Public record. Not legal advice.