The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action 2:19-cv-804
Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
TEJAS TUBULAR PRODUCTS, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Sealing. (Doc.
48). For the reasons that follow, the Motion is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
On October 23, 2020, this Court denied Defendant Tejas Tubular Products, Inc.’s
Emergency Motion to File Document Under Seal (Doc. 43). In that Order, the Court granted the
parties leave to “submit a memorandum in support of permanently sealing Doc. 40–3” and in the
event no party submitted such a memorandum, “the Court [would] direct the Clerk to unseal the
temporarily sealed Doc. 40–3.” (Doc. 43). Plaintiff Antero Resources Corp. submitted such a
memorandum on November 6, 2020. (Doc. 48). Accordingly, this matter is ripe for review.
II. 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., 825 F.3d at 305 (quoting Brown &
Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1179).
“[I]n 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., 825 F.3d at 308 (citation and quotations
omitted). “[T]he seal itself must be narrowly tailored to serve” the reason for sealing, which
requires the moving party to “analyze in detail, document by document, the propriety of secrecy,
providing reasons and legal citations.” Id. at 305–06 (quotation omitted). Ultimately, the movant
must show that “disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury … And in delineating
the injury to be prevented, specificity is essential.” Id. at 307–08 (internal citations and quotations
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).
III. DISCUSSION
In its supporting memorandum, Plaintiff “proposes that Defendant Tejas Tubular Products,
Inc. publicly file a version of the [d]ocument with the last page redacted.” (Doc. 48 at 1). Plaintiff
contends that this redaction is sufficiently narrowly tailored to serve the reason for sealing, which
in this case is the privacy interests of Plaintiff’s former employee David Kale (“Kale”), who is not
a party to this case. The last page of Doc. 40–3 is an email that contains “Kale’s manager’s opinion
of certain possible mistakes that [he] felt Kale had made in relation to the Wher 3H well.” (Id. at
3). Plaintiff claims that redacting this communication will prevent any harm to Kale’s reputation,
which may result from these criticisms of his performance. (Id.). Finally, Plaintiff emphasizes
that this information is not of great public interest, and thus, “Kale’s interest in keeping the [e]mail
private outweighs the public interest in publication of the [e]mail.” (Id.).
The Court agrees and finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the Sixth Circuit’s demanding
standard for sealing. Specifically, Plaintiff “analyze[s] in detail, document by document, the
propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305–06
(quotation omitted). Moreover, the personal information contained in the email is not a matter of
public interest. See Aday v. Westfield Ins. Co., No. 1:18-cv-405, 2020 WL 11951238.1 3 5517243,
at *14 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 14, 2020) (holding that a non-party employee’s interest in keeping
information private outweighed the public’s interest in accessing it). Additionally, redacting one
page of a nine-page document is narrowly tailored. See Abington Emerson Capital, LLC v.
Landash Corp., No. 2:17-CV-143, 2020 WL 5035452, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 26, 2020) (finding a
request to seal sufficiently narrowly tailored where plaintiff “filed a redacted version of its brief
on the public docket”).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to seal (Doc. 48) is GRANTED. The Clerk is
DIRECTED to permanently seal Doc. 40–3. Defendant is ORDERED file a redacted version of
Doc. 40–3 on the public docket within seven (7) days of the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: December 2, 2020 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE