“Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files.”
How later courts described this case
- “Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
TERRY LEE FROMAN,
Petitioner,
v. Case No. 2:23-cv-444
TIM SHOOP, Warden, Barrett, J.
Chillicothe Correctional Institution, Litkovitz, M.J
Respondent. ORDER
Petitioner, a prisoner sentenced to death by the State of Ohio, has pending before this
Court a notice of intent to file a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This
matter is before the Court on Respondent’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Sealed State
Court Documents Under Seal (Doc. 12), and Respondent’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to
Manually File Audio/Visual and Graphic Photo Exhibits. (Doc. 13).
In the motion to file sealed state court documents under seal, Respondent identifies the
documents at issue as “four State Court pleadings and the jury questionnaires.” (Doc. 12).
Respondent seeks to file these documents under seal as part of the Appendix, explaining only
that “these motions and their accompanying orders and the jury questionnaires were filed under
seal in the trial court.” (Id.) Respondent notes the state trial court granted the Warden limited
access to the documents for the purpose of filing them in these habeas proceedings, and
“[b]ecause these documents remain not publicly available in the State Court, the Warden
respectfully requests they be restricted from public access in this Court.” (Id.)
Respondent’s motion is, for the moment, GRANTED. Respondent may file the jury
questionnaires and the four pleadings at issue under seal. However, the Court DIRECTS the
parties to brief, within fourteen (14) days, the issue of maintaining these documents under seal.
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 Grp., 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)).
The Court recognizes the state trial court elected to file and maintain these documents
under seal as part of the state court proceedings. However, Respondent has not identified the
nature of the documents to this Court beyond the general statement that the documents consist of
juror questionnaires and “four State Court pleadings.” More information is needed for the Court
to determine whether principles of comity and deference to the state court’s initial determination
may be enough to overcome the public’s interest in open courts. Respondent also has not
addressed whether it is possible to file redacted versions of these exhibits in order to ensure the
remedy is “no broader than necessary to address the compelling reason for non-disclosure.”
Luxottica of Am. Inc. v. Allianz Glob. Risks US Ins. Co., No. 1:20-cv-698, 2021 WL 735205, at
*3 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 25, 2021) (internal citations omitted). See also Wiggins v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
No. 2:19-cv-3223, 2020 WL 7056479, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 2, 2020) (holding that the motion to
seal was “narrowly tailored” because the party sought “not to seal these exhibits in their entirety,
but rather, to file redacted versions on the public docket”). The parties shall also address
whether the substance of the four sealed documents is otherwise disclosed or apparent in the trial
transcript or other portions of the state court record.
The Court GRANTS Respondent’s motion for leave to manually file two disks
containing trial and hearing exhibits in the form of audio/visual files, as well as graphic photo
exhibits.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. The Court GRANTS, on an interim basis, Respondent’s motion to file the juror
questionnaires and the four pertinent documents referenced in the motion under seal.
2. Within fourteen (14) days, the parties shall brief the issue of maintaining these
documents under seal.
3. Respondent’s unopposed motion to file certain audio/visual exhibits and graphic photo
exhibits manually is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 9/26/2023 Horn, K Rethon
Karen L. Litkovitz
Chief United States Magistrate Judge