RGT Investments, LLC v. DJ Steakburgers, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

RGT INVESTMENTS, LLC, et al, Case No. 1:21-cv-546

Plaintiffs, Litkovitz, M.J.

vs.

DJ STEAKBURGERS, LLC, ORDER

Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on defendant DJ Steakburgers, LLC’s motion for leave to

file its motion for summary judgment and supporting exhibits under seal. (Doc. 21). In support

of its motion, defendant states that “certain information designated by it as ‘confidential’ should

be confidential and for attorneys’ eyes only pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order, filed on

January 10, 2022.” (Id.).

I. Standard of Review

Under Local Rule 5.2.1(a), “parties may not file documents under seal without obtaining

leave of Court upon motion and for good cause shown.” A court’s discretion to seal its own

records and files is limited by the “‘strong presumption in favor of openness’ as to court

records.” Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016)

(quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1179 (6th Cir. 1983)).

See also Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) (“Every court has

supervisory power over its own records and files.”). This openness presumption owes to the

public’s “strong interest in obtaining the information contained in the court record . . .

[including] an interest in ascertaining what evidence and records” a court relies upon for its

decisions. Lipman v. Budish, 974 F.3d 726, 753 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Brown & Williamson,

710 F.2d at 1180-81). The party seeking to seal court records carries the heavy burden of

overcoming this presumption, and “[o]nly the most compelling reasons can justify non-

disclosure of judicial records.” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305 (quoting In re Knoxville News-

Sentinel Co., Inc., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983)). Additionally, the Court is required to set

forth specific findings and conclusions justifying the sealing of records—regardless of whether a

party objects. Id. at 306.

To justify sealing records, the proponent must demonstrate: “(1) a compelling interest in

sealing the records; (2) that the interest in sealing outweighs the public’s interest in accessing the

records; and (3) that the request is narrowly tailored.” Kondash v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 767 F.

App’x 635, 637 (6th Cir. 2019) (citing Shane Group, 825 F.3d at 305). The proponent must also

“analyze in detail, document by document, the propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal

citations.” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305-06 (quoting Baxter Intern., Inc. v. Abbott Lab’ys, 297

F.3d 544, 548 (7th Cir. 2002)).

As relevant here, the Sixth Circuit recognizes certain content-based exceptions to the

presumption of openness related to “certain privacy rights of participants or third parties. . . .”

Brahmamdam v. TriHealth, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-152, 2021 WL 5005368, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 27,

2021) (quoting Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1179). In the context of civil litigation, this

exception is generally limited to “only trade secrets, information covered by a recognized

privilege, and information required by statute to be maintained in confidence. . . .” Id. (quoting

Reese on Behalf of Fifth Third Bancorp v. Carmichael, No. 1:20-cv-886, 2020 WL 6810921, at

*1 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 16, 2020)).

II. Analysis

Defendant seeks a blanket order sealing its forthcoming motion for summary judgment

and exhibits in support of the forthcoming motion for summary judgment on the sole basis that

“certain information designated by it as ‘confidential’ should be confidential and for attorneys’

eyes only pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order, filed on January 10, 2022.” (Id.).

The Court recognizes there may be a compelling interest in maintaining the

confidentiality of certain documents. However, defendant has not identified the specific

documents it seeks to seal or provided any reasons, other than the presence of the confidentiality

provision in the protective order, why these documents should be sealed. The fact that these

documents may have been marked “confidential” and produced pursuant to a protective order

does not justify its sealing. In Shane Group, the sole justification for sealing documents in that

case was that the filings included materials “designated as a confidential” pursuant to a joint

protective order. Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 306. The Sixth Circuit held that such reasoning was

“inadequate” to seal the documents at issue because it was “brief” and “perfunctory.” Id. The

Court of Appeals stated, “In sealing all these documents and exhibits, the parties and the district

court plainly conflated the standards for entering a protective order under Rule 26 with the vastly

more demanding standards for sealing off judicial records from public view.” Id. at 307. The

Sixth Circuit explained that “a mere protective order [that] restricts access to discovery materials

is not reason enough, as shown above, to seal from public view materials that the parties have

chosen to place in the court record.” Id. (emphasis in original).

As the party seeking to seal these documents, defendant carries the heavy burden of

overcoming the presumption of openness document-by-document with reference to specific

reasons and/or legal citations. Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305-06. Defendant’s motion must be

sufficiently specific to allow the Court to, in turn, set forth specific findings and conclusions

justifying the sealing of each document—regardless of whether plaintiff objects. Id. at 306.

Defendant’s motion to seal (Doc. 21) is therefore DENIED subject to reconsideration

upon the submission of a motion consistent with the law summarized above. The Court notes

that in the event any future motion to seal is granted, a redacted version of the motion for

summary judgment and supporting exhibits will be required to be filed on the Court’s docket.

IT ISSO ORDERED.

Date: 9/1/2022 Herm Xethov

Karen L. Litkovitz

Chief United States Magistrate Judge