discussing the justifications for the “strong presumption in favor of openness”
How later courts described this case
- discussing the justifications for the “strong presumption in favor of openness”
- “‘[T]he greater the public interest in the litigation’s subject matter, the greater the showing necessary to overcome the presumption of access.’”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ABRAHAM, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 2:18-cv-1306
vs. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant.
ORDER
Defendant United States of America has filed a renewed Motion for Leave to File its
Motion for Summary Judgment Under Seal. (ECF No. 43.) For the following reasons, the
motion is GRANTED.
It is well established that “[e]very court has supervisory power over its own records and
files.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). A court’s discretion to seal
records from public inspection, however, is limited by “the presumptive right of the public to
inspect and copy judicial documents and files[,]” which the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit as described as a “long-established legal tradition.” In re Knoxville News-
Sentinel Co., Inc., 723 F.2d 470, 473–74 (6th Cir. 1983); see also Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1178–80 (6th Cir. 1983) (discussing the justifications for the
“strong presumption in favor of openness”). Therefore, “[o]nly the most compelling reasons can
justify non-disclosure of judicial records.” Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich.,
825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Sixth
Circuit has indicated that exceptions fall into two categories: (1) exceptions “based on the need
to keep order and dignity in the courtroom”; and (2) “content-based exemptions,” which “include
certain privacy rights of participants or third parties, trade secrets, and national security.” Brown
& Williamson Tobacco Corp., 710 F.2d at 1179 (citations omitted).
In addition, the Sixth Circuit has recently emphasized the public’s “strong interest in
obtaining the information contained in the Court record.” Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 305
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig.,
927 F.3d 919, 939 (6th Cir. 2019) (“‘[T]he greater the public interest in the litigation’s subject
matter, the greater the showing necessary to overcome the presumption of access.’”) (quoting
Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 305). Accordingly, district courts must consider “each pleading [to
be] filed under seal or with redactions and to make a specific determination as to the necessity of
nondisclosure in each instance” and must “bear in mind that the party seeking to file under seal
must provide a ‘compelling reason’ to do so and demonstrate that the seal is ‘narrowly tailored to
serve that reason.’” In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig., 927 F.3d at 940 (quoting Shane Grp.,
825 F.3d at 305). If a district court “permits a pleading to be filed under seal or with redactions,
it shall be incumbent upon the court to adequately explain ‘why the interests in support of
nondisclosure are compelling, why the interests supporting access are less so, and why the seal
itself is no broader than necessary.’” Id. (quoting Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 306).
In its renewed motion, Defendant sets forth a more detailed explanation as to why the
motion for summary judgment and its related exhibits should be filed under seal. Specifically,
Defendant explains that the summary judgment motion relies on the Administrative Record and
that the Record contains personally identifying information as well as sensitive Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) information including purchasing history and
investigative techniques. The Court finds that the existence of personally identifying
information relating to SNAP households is a compelling reason to allow Defendant to file its
motion and related attachments under seal. However, to ensure that the sealing is appropriately
limited in scope, Defendant is required to file a redacted version on the public record.
Accordingly, the Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (ECF No. 43) is GRANTED.
Defendant shall file a redacted version of its motion for summary judgment and related exhibits
on the public record within SEVEN (7) DAYS.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers______
DATED: June 15, 2020 ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE