# Blankenship v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · September 12, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10373811

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** September 12, 2019
- **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/10373811

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

Valerie S Blankenship, Administrator of the
Estate of Diana L. Hatt, Deceased,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:19-cv-38
Judge Thomas M. Rose

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.,

Defendant.

ENTRY AND ORDER STRIKING STIPULATED
PROTECTIVE ORDER. (ECF 21).

Pending before the Court is the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order. ECF 21. Therein the
parties seek permission to file under seal documents that they believe are confidential. Because
the Court cannot abdicate its control of its own docket to the parties, including control of what is
filed under seal and what is not, the Court ORDERS the Clerk to STRIKE the parties’ Stipulated
Protective Order. ECF 21.
“The public has a strong interest in obtaining the information contained in the court record.”
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1180 (6th Cir. 1983). A district
court that chooses to seal court records must set forth specific findings and conclusions which
justify nondisclosure to the public. Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, No.
15-1544, 2016 WL 3163073, at *4 (6th Cir. June 7, 2016) (citing Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d
at 1176. That is true even if neither party objects to the motion to seal. Id. A court's obligation to
explain the basis for sealing court records is independent of whether anyone objects to it. Id. A
court's failure to set forth those reasons…is itself grounds to vacate an order to seal. Id. See also
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust Co., 78 F.3d 219, 227 (6th Cir. 1996) (opinion of Merritt,
J.) and 229 n.1 (Brown, J., dissenting). The parties’ protective order, ECF 21, ¶ 14, does not meet
this requirement.

DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Thursday, September 12, 2019.

s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10373811. Public record. Not legal advice.