“Only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.” (quotation omitted)
How later courts described this case
- “Only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.” (quotation omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
LANGUAGE ACCESS NETWORK
Case No. 2:19-cv-194
Plaintiff, Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
v.
CULTURALINK, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a renewed joint Motion to Seal (Doc. 76). This motion
is responsive to the Court’s previous Opinion and Order (Doc. 75), which denied without prejudice
the seal requested for exhibit 235, exhibit 240, and Richard Gordon’s deposition transcript pages
73–74 and 177–81. For the following reasons, the renewed Motion is GRANTED.
I. STANDARD
Courts distinguish between limiting public disclosure of information during discovery
versus the adjudicative stage of a case. See Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan,
825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016). “The line between these two stages, discovery and adjudicative,
is crossed when the parties place material in the court record.” Id. (citing Baxter Int’l, Inc. v.
Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002)). “Unlike information merely exchanged between
the parties, ‘[t]he public has a strong interest in obtaining the information contained in the court
record.’” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305 (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C.,
710 F.2d 1165, 1180 (6th Cir. 1983)). For this reason, the moving party has 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); see also Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at
305 (“Only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.” (quotation
omitted)).
“[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). If there is a compelling reason, “the party must then show why those reasons outweigh
the public interest in access to those records.” Kondash v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 767 F. App’x
635, 637 (6th Cir. 2019) (citing Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305). The Court “has an obligation to
keep its records open for public inspection [and] that obligation is not conditioned upon the desires
of the parties to the case.” Harrison v. Proctor & Gamble Co., No. 1:15-CV-514, 2017 WL
11454396, at *1–2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 11, 2017) (citing Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 307.). The court
“that chooses to seal court records must set forth specific findings and conclusions ‘which justify
nondisclosure to the public.’” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 306 (citing Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d
at 1176).
II. DISCUSSION
The parties jointly “request that the Court permit them to file un-redacted versions of the
following documents under seal and redacted versions with the Clerk:” exhibit 235, exhibit 240,
and pages of Richard Gordon’s deposition transcript. (Doc. 76). The parties represent that
disclosure on the public docket of this private information would put Defendants at a competitive
disadvantage. (Doc. 76 at 4). Previously, in an Opinion and Order (Doc. 75), the Undersigned
denied without prejudice the seal of these documents because the motion did not meet the Sixth
Circuit’s high bar for sealing. The parties have now submitted more narrowly tailored redactions
for the Court’s consideration.
This Court has recognized that companies have a compelling interest in protecting
confidential information when disclosure on the public docket would “give a significant advantage
to competitors of the parties in this action.” Total Quality Logistics, LLC v. Riffe, No. 1:19-CV-
23, 2020 WL 5849408, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2020); see also Lucid Health, Inc. v. Premier
Imaging Ventures, LLC, No. 2:20-CV-1055, 2021 WL 128956, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 14, 2021).
The parties have met the burden to justify sealing these documents, which “contain financial trade
secret information relating to the amounts of Catholic Health Initiatives’ investments in Defendant
CulturaLink, as well as CulturaLink’s revenues, expenses, and profit margins.” (Doc. 76 at 4).
Furthermore, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored. Lastly, the public has a lesser interest
in viewing this confidential financial because it is not needed to understand the events giving rise
to the dispute or the arguments in the case. Ewalt v. GateHouse Media Ohio Holding II, Inc., No.
2:19-CV-4262, 2020 WL 6110569, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 16, 2020). Accordingly, the motion is
GRANTED.
III. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint Motion for Leave to File
Documents Under Seal (Doc. 76).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: November 15, 2021 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE