holding that a “confidentiality agreement between the parties does not bind the court in any way”
How later courts described this case
- holding that a “confidentiality agreement between the parties does not bind the court in any way”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ATLAS INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS,
L.L.C.,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:19-cv-2705
v. Judge Sarah D. Morrison
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
IN2GRO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion to File Documents
Under Seal (“Motion,” ECF No. 89.) In their Motion, Plaintiff proposes to file under seal, in
connection with its Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 90), documents designated as “Confidential” under the Order Governing Discovery of
Confidential and Protected Information (“Protective Order”) in effect in this case. (Motion, ECF
No. 89, citing Protective Order, ECF No. 45.) For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
There is a strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial records. Stanley v.
Turner Oil & Gas Properties, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-386, 2017 WL 5068444, at *1 (S.D. Ohio July
24, 2017). The Sixth Circuit recently affirmed that documents filed with the Court may be
placed under seal “[o]nly for the most compelling reasons.” Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting In re Knoxville News–Sentinel
Co., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983)). “A movant’s obligation to provide compelling reasons
justifying the seal exists even if the parties themselves agree the filings should be sealed.” White
v. Wilberforce Univ., No. 1:16-CV-1165, 2017 WL 3537233, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 17, 2017)
(emphasis in original) (citing Rudd Equip. Co., Inc. v. John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co., 834
F.3d 589, 595 (6th Cir. 2016)). The proponent of sealing therefore must “analyze in detail,
document by document, the propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.” Shane
Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 305 (quoting Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 548 (7th Cir.
2002)). These reasons and legal citations must be sufficient for a district court to “set forth
specific findings and conclusions which justify nondisclosure to the public.” Rudd Equip. Co.,
Inc., 834 F.3d at 594.
Here, Plaintiff’s Motion fails to meet the high standard set forth by the Sixth Circuit.
Plaintiff fails to set forth compelling reasons justifying the sealing of documents, asserting only
that the documents in question have been designated as “Confidential” under the Protective
Order (ECF No. 45). The parties’ agreement to maintain confidentiality, standing alone, does
not constitute a compelling reason for filing under seal. See Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1180 (6th Cir. 1983) (holding that a “confidentiality agreement
between the parties does not bind the court in any way”); White, 2017 WL 3537233, at *2
(finding the parties’ joint motion to file under seal woefully inadequate where they merely
asserted that they decided to keep the terms of their settlement confidential); In re Black
Diamond Mining Co., LLC, No. 15-96, 2016 WL 4433356, at *3 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 18, 2016)
(explaining that the existence of a confidentiality agreement, alone, is not a compelling reason to
seal a record). Thus, even where documents are designated “Confidential,” the moving party
must provide compelling reasons justifying the sealing of those documents.
For the above-stated reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 89) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. If any party desires that Plaintiff file the exhibit referred to in Plaintiff’s
Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 90) under
seal to protect information designated “Confidential” under the Protective Order (ECF No. 45),
the proponent of the seal must file a properly supported motion that demonstrates good cause for
filing under seal. The parties are cautioned that any forthcoming motions regarding filing
documents under seal should be narrowly tailored, as the sealing of documents must be no
broader than necessary. See Shane Group, Inc., 825 F.3d at 305.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura
CHELSEY M. VASCURA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE