The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
CHRISTIE ANDREWS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) NO. 3:21-cv-00526
v. )
)
TRI STAR SPORTS AND ) JUDGE RICHARDSON
ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC., )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s unopposed motion (Doc. No. 73, “Motion”) to
seal portions of exhibits to Plaintiff’s response in opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment. For the reasons stated herein, the Motion will be granted.
There is a strong presumption for court records to be open to the public, and thus there is a
heavy burden to show why any records should be sealed. See, e.g., Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1176-79 (6th Cir. 1983). “To meet this burden, the party seeking a
seal must show (1) a compelling interest in sealing the records; (2) that the interests in sealing
outweigh the public’s right of access; and (3) that the proposed seal is narrowly-tailored.” Durbin
v. C&L Tiling Inc., No. 3:18-CV-334-RGJ, 2019 WL 4615409, at *14 (W.D. Ky. Sept. 23,
2019) (citing Rudd Equip. Co. v. John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co., 834 F.3d 589, 593-94 (6th
Cir. 2016)).
The Sixth Circuit has noted that “the privacy interests of innocent third parties should
weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation.” Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Michigan, 825 F.3d 299, 308 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044,
1050 (2d Cir. 1995)). However, “[t]he public has a strong interest in obtaining the information
contained in the court record [and] ... in ascertaining what evidence and records the District Court
[ ] relied upon in reaching [its] decisions.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710
F.2d 1165, 1180 (6th Cir. 1983).
The Sixth Circuit has also recognized that trade secrets will generally satisfy a party’s
burden of showing a compelling reason for sealing documents. See Kondash v. Kia Motors
America, Inc., 767 F. App’x 635, 638 (6th Cir. 2019). Nonetheless, “even if a district court finds
that a trade secret exists, it must still determine whether public interest outweighs the moving
party's interests in protecting their trade secret.” See id.
Defendant requests that the Court seal or redact exhibits or portions of exhibits that contain
personal health information of third parties, the contact information of former employees of
Defendant, and in some instances, the names of third parties. Defendant also requests that the Court
redact information regarding particular employees’ billing rates, the name of Defendant’s client,
and information pertaining to Defendant’s business during the COVID-19 pandemic. (Doc. No.
73). The Court has reviewed the exhibits and the portions thereof which Defendant seeks to redact
and agrees with Defendant that the information contained therein is either private information of
third parties or information pertaining to trade secrets. The Court finds that the privacy interests of
the third parties and the interests in protecting trade secrets outweighs the public’s interest in
accessing the information. The Court also finds that the requests to seal or redact are narrowly
tailored.
As a result, each of the exhibits that Defendant filed under seal, and seeks via the Motion
to keep under seal, shall remain under seal. The Court will separately enter a corresponding order
which specifies (a) those exhibits as to which no redacted version needs to be publicly filed
(because the filing of a redacted version would be “impracticable,” M.D. Tenn. LR 5.03, given
that the portion not subject to redaction would be would negligible or immaterial); and (b) as to
remaining exhibits, what redactions are permissible in the redacted version that must be publicly
filed.
Che Rechardser
ELI RICHARDSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE