“Only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.” (quotation omitted)
How later courts described this case
- “Only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.” (quotation omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
SPENCER NEAL,
Case No. 2:18-cv-958
Plaintiff, JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
v.
DIVYA JYOTI LTD.,
Defendant.
ORDER
The matter before the Court is Plaintiff Spencer Neal’s Motion for Leave to File Under
Seal (ECF No. 49). For the reasons that follow, the motion (ECF No. 49) is DENIED.
A district court may enter a protective order during discovery on a mere showing of “good
cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). “[V]ery different considerations apply” when a party seeks to
seal documents “[a]t the adjudication stage,” which applies “when the parties place material in the
court record.” Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir.
2016) (quotation omitted). “Unlike information merely exchanged between the parties, ‘[t]he
public has a strong interest in obtaining the information contained in the court record.’” Id.
(quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1180 (6th Cir. 1983)). For
this reason, the moving party has a “heavy” burden of overcoming a “‘strong presumption in favor
of openness’ as to court records.” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305 (quoting Brown & Williamson, 710
F.2d at 1179); see also Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305 (“Only the most compelling reasons can justify
non-disclosure of judicial records.” (quotation omitted)). “[T]he seal itself must be narrowly
tailored to serve that reason,” which requires the moving party to “analyze in detail, document by
document, the propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d
at 305–06 (quotation omitted). Similarly, the court “that chooses to seal court records must set
forth specific findings and conclusions which justify nondisclosure.” Id. at 306 (quotation
omitted).
Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement in which he asserts the
parties executed a settlement agreement on January 29, 2020. (ECF No. 48.) Plaintiff maintains
that Defendant has failed to comply with the agreement by failing to pay sums, as agreed. (Id.) In
support of this motion, Plaintiff seeks to file the parties’ settlement agreement under seal. (ECF
No. 49.) Plaintiff contends the settlement agreement is confidential. (Id.)
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file under seal falls short of the standards established by the
Sixth Circuit. As this Court has stated previously, “[t]he parties’ preference to keep their
agreement confidential is insufficient to warrant a seal.” White v. Wilberforce Univ., No. 1:16-cv-
1165, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131143, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 17, 2017). Plaintiff has not
demonstrated a compelling reason for requesting a seal or set forth any information from which
the Court could make specific findings and conclusions justifying non-disclosure to the public.
Plaintiff will need to file the settlement agreement in the public record for the Court to consider
the motion to enforce the agreement.
Accordingly, the motion to seal (ECF No. 49) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4/13/2020 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE