Opinion

Arnold v. CooperSurgical, Inc.

Court
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Filed
May 31, 2024
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 28.4%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

AMY ARNOLD,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:22-cv-1951

v. JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

COOPERSURGICAL, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Amy Arnold’s Motion to Seal. (Pl. Mot., ECF

No. 107.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES without prejudice Arnold’s Motion

to Seal.

While Arnold indicates her Motion is unopposed, the Court has an independent obligation

to ensure a seal of presumptively public records is warranted. There is a “strong presumption in

favor of openness” as to court records. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d

1165, 1179 (6th Cir. 1983). The party seeking to seal the records bears a heavy burden to overcome

the presumption of free access. Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d

299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016). “Only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of public

records.” In re Knoxville News–Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983). Therefore, the

seal must be narrowly tailored and the proponent of sealing must “analyze in detail, document by

document, the propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.” Shane Grp., Inc., 825

F.3d at 305 (quoting Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 548 (7th Cir. 2002)).

Arnold does not sufficiently justify why the exhibits identified in her Motion should be

sealed. It is not enough that her Motion is unopposed or that the exhibits are subject to the Parties’

protective order. Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 306–07. Accordingly, the Court DENIES without

prejudice Arnold’s Motion. Arnold is DIRECTED to file a renewed Motion to Seal WITHIN

SEVEN DAYS of this Order that complies with the Sixth Circuit’s standard for sealing a court

filing.

Additionally, the Court EXTENDS the Parties’ deadline to submit Confidential Settlement

Assessments to SEVEN DAYS before the Settlement Conference scheduled in the Court’s Order

Setting Trial Date and Settlement Conference. (ECF No. 106.)

This case remains open.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5/31/2024 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.

DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.