The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
KELSEA D. WIGGINS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action 2:19-cv-3223
v. Judge Edmund A. Sargus
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
B ANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery and for Award of Costs and Fees on
September 29, 2020. (Doc. 77). She attached the declaration of her counsel, as well as over 200
pages of supporting exhibits. (Doc. 78). The next day, Plaintiff moved to file under seal eleven
of these exhibits. (Doc. 79). Defendants do not oppose this request. (See id. at 1). For the reasons
that follow, Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 79) is DENIED.
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
Plaintiff’s Motion falls far short of the Sixth Circuit’s standard for sealing court records.
She asserts that the exhibits at issue should be sealed because Defendants “identified these
documents, or portions of these documents, as either ‘confidential’ or ‘highly confidential’
pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order” and that Defendants “assert that these documents
contain confidential trade secret information.” (Doc. 79 at 2).
But “[a]s the Sixth Circuit has noted, there is a ‘stark difference’ between court orders
which preserve the secrecy of proprietary information while parties trade discovery and orders
which seal the court’s record.” Borum v. Smith, No. 4:17-CV-17, 2017 WL 2588433, at *1 (W.D.
Ky. June 14, 2017) (quoting Rudd Equip. Co., Inc. v. John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co., 834
F.3d 589, 593 (6th Cir. 2016)). As explained, a motion to seal must analyze in detail the documents
at issue, provide legal citations supporting the requested seal, and show that the requested seal is
narrowly tailored. See Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 307. Said differently, “[t]he party seeking
protection from public filing must do more than simply allege the information constitutes
confidential business information which, if revealed, could harm the company.” Yoe v. Crescent
Sock Co., No. 1:15-CV-3-SKL, 2017 WL 11479990, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 24, 2017) (citation
omitted).
Yet this is precisely what Plaintiff does. She relies on a “naked conclusory statement” that
the documents contain confidential trade secrets. Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1180
(quotation marks and citation omitted). Such a statement “falls woefully short of the kind of
showing which raises even an arguable issue as to whether it may be kept under seal.” Id.
(quotation marks and citation omitted). Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED as a result. The Court
notes that, since Defendants apparently believe these documents contain trade secrets, they may
elect to file a motion to seal consistent with the Sixth Circuit’s standard described above. Any
such motion must be filed within seven (7) days of the date of this Opinion and Order.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to File Documents Under Seal (Doc. 79) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: October 5, 2020 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE