discussing the justifications for the “strong presumption in favor of openness”
How later courts described this case
- discussing the justifications for the “strong presumption in favor of openness”
- “‘[T]he greater the public interest in the litigation’s subject matter, the greater the showing necessary to overcome the presumption of access.’”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
BRITAN TOLLIVER,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:20-cv-3790
vs. Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers
FOOD CONCEPTS INTERNATIONAL,
LP, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Defendants have filed a motion for leave to file under seal unredacted versions of the
Exhibits A and B to Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel and
Notice of Substitution of Counsel. (ECF No. 43.) Defendants already have filed their
Opposition and redacted exhibits on the public record. For the following reasons, the motion to
seal is GRANTED.
It is well established that “[e]very court has supervisory power over its own records and
files.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). A court’s discretion to seal
records from public inspection, however, is limited by “the presumptive right of the public to
inspect and copy judicial documents and files[,]” which the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit as described as a “long-established legal tradition.” In re Knoxville News-
Sentinel Co., Inc., 723 F.2d 470, 473–74 (6th Cir. 1983); see also Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1178–80 (6th Cir. 1983) (discussing the justifications for the
“strong presumption in favor of openness”). Therefore, “[o]nly the most compelling reasons can
justify non-disclosure of judicial records.” Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich.,
825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Sixth
Circuit has indicated that exceptions fall into two categories: (1) exceptions “based on the need
to keep order and dignity in the courtroom”; and (2) “content-based exemptions,” which “include
certain privacy rights of participants or third parties, trade secrets, and national security.” Brown
& Williamson Tobacco Corp., 710 F.2d at 1179 (citations omitted).
In addition, the Sixth Circuit has recently emphasized the public’s “strong interest in
obtaining the information contained in the Court record.” Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 305
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig.,
927 F.3d 919, 939 (6th Cir. 2019) (“‘[T]he greater the public interest in the litigation’s subject
matter, the greater the showing necessary to overcome the presumption of access.’”) (quoting
Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 305). Accordingly, district courts must consider “each pleading [to
be] filed under seal or with redactions and to make a specific determination as to the necessity of
nondisclosure in each instance” and must “bear in mind that the party seeking to file under seal
must provide a ‘compelling reason’ to do so and demonstrate that the seal is ‘narrowly tailored to
serve that reason.’” In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig., 927 F.3d at 940 (quoting Shane Grp.,
825 F.3d at 305). If a district court “permits a pleading to be filed under seal or with redactions,
it shall be incumbent upon the court to adequately explain ‘why the interests in support of
nondisclosure are compelling, why the interests supporting access are less so, and why the seal
itself is no broader than necessary.’” Id. (quoting Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 306).
Defendants explain that Exhibits A and B contain sensitive personal information
regarding Plaintiff’s counsel and that public disclosure of this information could potentially bring
substantial harm to individuals associated with Plaintiffs’ counsel. (ECF No. 43 at 1.)
Defendants state that the redactions involve one sentence in each exhibit and, as extremely
minimal, do not substantively impact the merits of Defendants’ opposition. (Id. at 1-2.)
Based on these representations, the Court is satisfied that sealing is both warranted under
the circumstances and appropriately limited in scope. Accordingly, the motion for leave to file
under seal (ECF No. 43) is GRANTED. Defendants shall submit unredacted versions of
Exhibits A and B to their Opposition (ECF No. 42) within seven days of the date of this Order.
The Clerk shall maintain the unredacted exhibits under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers______
DATED: February 18, 2022 ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE