“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
PASTOR ROSANNA L. COLEMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. Civil Action 2:21-cv-2103
Judge James L. Graham
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
ALLEGHENY COUNTY,
PA PFA UNIT, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Franklin County
Children Service Records Under Seal (Doc. 92). For the following reasons, the 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.’” Id. (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.” Id. (quoting Brown & Williamson, 710
F.2d at 1179); see also id. (“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.” Id. 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). In sum, to overcome “the strong presumption
in favor of openness,” parties who move to seal documents 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, 767 F. App’x at
637.
II. DISCUSSION
Defendants seek to file under seal twelve Franklin County Children Services records in
support of their Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 92 at 1). Defendants argue that the records
should be sealed because, according to Ohio statutes, these records are “confidential.” (Id. at 2).
The Undersigned agrees.
First, there is a compelling interest in sealing these records because the records contain
personal information concerning Franklin County Children Services investigations. As the Sixth
Circuit has explained, “the privacy interests of innocent third parties should weigh heavily in a
court’s balancing.” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 308 (citing United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044,
1050 (2d Cir. 1995). Furthermore, privacy interests of minors are implicated in these materials,
which weighs heavily toward sealing. See Edelstein v. Stephens, No. 1:17-cv-00305, 2018 WL
4854593, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 5, 2018) (discussing that the Sixth Circuit and judges in this district
order records to be sealed where the records contain “personal identifying information that must
be protected from disclosure” and information that involves minors). And Ohio’s statutes place a
duty on children services agencies to keep “written records of investigations” “confidential.” See
Ohio Rev. Code § 5153.17 (“Such records shall be confidential[.]”); see also § 2151.421.
Although these records are relevant to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, the
Court has the “power to seal records when the interests of privacy outweigh the public’s right to
know.” In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., Inc., 723 F.2d. 470, 474 (6th Cir. 1983). Here, the
privacy interests at stake outweigh the public’s interest in accessing these materials. Moreover,
Defendants’ request is narrowly tailored, as each record is less than ten pages long and could not
practically be redacted. As such, after in camera review, the Court finds that the information
Defendants present is the kind that warrants sealing.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, Defendants’ Motion (Doc. 92) is GRANTED. Defendants are
ORDERED to file the records under seal within seven (7) days of the entry date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: December 11, 2023 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE