The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ROVER PIPELINE LLC,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:17-cv-105
vs. Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Jolson
5.46 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR
LESS, IN BELMONT COUNTY, OHIO
(PIPELINE RIGHT-OF-WAY
S ERVITUDE), et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal. (Doc. 931). Plaintiff seeks
to file Exhibit “C” to its Combined Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary
Injunction and Permanent Injunction (Doc. 930-3) under seal. (See generally Doc. 931). For the
reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED without prejudice to re-filing.
I. STANDARD
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 owns a “heavy” burden of overcoming a “‘strong presumption in
favor of openness’ as to court records.” Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 305 (quoting Brown &
Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1179). “[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., Inc., 825 F.3d at 305–06 (quotation
marks and citation omitted). Similarly, the court “that chooses to seal court records must set forth
specific findings and conclusions which justify nondisclosure.” Id. at 306 (quotation marks and
citation omitted).
II. DISCUSSION
The Sixth Circuit’s decision in Shane Group, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
provides guidance for analyzing Plaintiff’s Motion. There, “[n]umerous court filings,” including
the plaintiffs’ amended complaint, the motion for class certification, and 194 exhibits, were filed
under seal. Graiser v. Visionworks of Am., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-2306, 2016 WL 3597718, at *1
(N.D. Ohio July 5, 2016) (citing Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 307). The sole justification was that
the filings “contained materials designated as confidential under [a joint] protective order.”
Graiser, 2016 WL 3597718, at *1 (citing Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 306). And the Sixth Circuit
held that such reasoning was “inadequate” to seal the documents at issue because it was “brief”
and “perfunctory.” Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 306.
Plaintiff’s reasoning here is similarly thin. It states simply that “Exhibit C contains
confidential financial information, and thus should not be made publicly available.” (Doc. 931 at
1). But it also notes that it has filed a redacted version of the exhibit that redacts the “confidential
financial information.” (Id.). But, as the Sixth Circuit has told us, “in civil litigation, only trade
secrets, information covered by a recognized privilege (such as the attorney-client privilege), and
information required by statute to be maintained in confidence (such as the name of a minor victim
of a sexual assault), is typically enough to overcome the presumption of access.” Shane Grp., Inc.,
825 F.3d at 308 (citation and quotations omitted). And Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the
information it seeks to seal falls into any of these categories.
Moreover, as the Court in Shane also emphasized, “[i]n delineating the injury to be
prevented, specificity is essential.” Id. at 307–08 (quoting In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 194
(3d Cir. 2001)). But Plaintiff has not “demonstrate[d]—on a document-by-document, line-by-line
basis—that specific information in the court record meets the demanding requirements for a seal.”
Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 308; see also Blasi v. United Debt Servs., LLC, No. 2:14-CV-83,
2016 WL 3765539, at *1 (S.D. Ohio July 14, 2016) (applying Shane to reach a similar conclusion);
Graiser, 2016 WL 3597718, at *2 (same). Indeed, Plaintiff has not explained with particularity
why redaction is proper let alone filing the entire exhibit under seal.
Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 931) is therefore DENIED without prejudice to re-filing. The
Clerk is DIRECTED to temporarily seal Exhibit C (Doc. 930-3) for ten (10) days. While Exhibit
C is under a temporary seal, Plaintiff may re-file a more detailed and narrowly-tailored motion to
permanently seal. See Blasi, 2016 WL 3765539, at *1 (noting that a proper motion to seal must
“demonstrate[] a compelling reason for filing under seal, . . . must be narrowly tailored to serve
that reason,” and must “analyze in detail, document by document, the propriety of secrecy,
providing reasons and legal citations”).
III. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 931) is DENIED without
prejudice to re-filing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: June 30, 2020 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE