# Gomez v. City of Memphis, Tennessee

> District Court, W.D. Tennessee · April 20, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10439825

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** April 20, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10439825

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting the “strong presumption in favor of openness as to court records . . .” (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1179 (6th Cir. 1983)
- noting the “strong presumption in favor of openness as to court records . . .” (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1179 (6th Cir. 1983)) (internal quotation marks omitted)

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

AMY D. GOMEZ, Administratrix of the )
Estate of STEVEN N. GOMEZ, Deceased, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No. 2:19-cv-02412-JPM-tmp
v. )
)
CITY OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE; )
SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE; )
OFFICER JOSE FLORES, individually and )
in his official capacity; OFFICER )
ANTHONY HENDERSON, individually and )
in his official capacity; OFFICER VINCENT )
MACARAEG, individually and in his official )
capacity; LIEUTENANT ROOSEVELT )
TWILLEY, in his individual and official )
capacity; and JOHN DOES 1-15, )
)
Defendants. )
)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE
COMPLAINT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL THE
COMPLAINT

Before the Court are Plaintiff Amy D. Gomez’s March 31, 2020 Motion for Leave to
Amend her Complaint and her accompanying Motion to File the First Amended Complaint
Under Seal. (ECF Nos. 59, 50.) Plaintiff moves the Court pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 16(b)(4) and 15(a)(2) for leave to file her Amended Complaint. (Id.; see Proposed
Amended Complaint, ECF Nos. 59-1, 60-1.) Plaintiff seeks to amend her Complaint after
receiving body cam footage from several of the Defendant Officers in this case, which were
produced by Shelby County on December 20, 2019 and January 7, 2020 in the course of
discovery. (ECF No. 59-4 at PageID 288–89.) Defendants have not filed responses to the
Motion for Leave to Amend. Pursuant to the Local Rules, Defendants’ failure to respond
within the 14-day deadline imposed by the Local Rules indicates that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave is unopposed.1 L.R. 7.2(a)(2) (“Failure to respond to any motion, other than one

requesting dismissal of a claim or action, may be deemed good grounds for granting the
motion.”) Because Defendants did not respond to the Motion for Leave, and because the
Court “should freely give leave when justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), the Court
GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File her Amended Complaint.
The Court, however, DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to file the Amended Complaint under

seal. (See ECF No. 60.) Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden demonstrating that a compelling
reason justifies sealing the Amended Complaint, and that sealing the entirety of the Amended
Complaint would be narrowly tailored to achieve any such compelling interest.
It is a long-established legal principle that the public has the “presumptive right . . . to
inspect and copy judicial documents and files.” In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., Inc., 723
F.2d 470, 474 (6th Cir. 1983) (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978));
see also Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016)
(noting the “strong presumption in favor of openness as to court records . . .” (quoting Brown
& Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1179 (6th Cir. 1983)) (internal quotation
marks omitted)). A court may deny access to court files when the files “might have become a

1 Plaintiff emailed the Court’s ECF Inbox to inform the Court that Defendants do not oppose the Motion for
Leave. Although such information is helpful, the preferred method of informing the Court of such matters is by
the filing a notice or motion on the Court’s electronic filing system for purposes of preserving the record of the
case.
vehicle for improper purposes,” such as when the files are used to “gratify private spite or
promote public scandal,” or when used to “serve as reservoirs of libelous statements for press
consumption, or as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive
standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. The district court has “supervisory power over its own

records and files” and may deny access when such exceptions are present. In re Knoxville, 723
F.2d at 474 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598).
“The presumption of [judicial] openness may be overcome only by an overriding interest
based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to
serve that interest.” Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of California, Riverside Cty., 464 U.S.
501, 510 (1984). “The party seeking to seal records has the heavy burden of overcoming the
‘strong presumption in favor of openness.’” Kondash v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 767 F. App’x
635, 637 (6th Cir. 2019) (quoting Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 305). The party seeking to seal
the records must demonstrate three things: (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.” Id. If the party can show a compelling interest in keeping
the documents unavailable to the public, then it must demonstrate why those compelling reasons
“outweigh the public interest in access to those records and that the seal is narrowly tailored to
serve that reason.” Id. Meeting this burden requires the defendant to “analyze in detail,
document by document, the propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.” Shane
Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 305–06.
Plaintiff has not provided the detailed analysis necessary to meet her burden under
controlling Sixth Circuit precedent. Plaintiff’s Motion provides only a Memorandum of Law
detailing the Rule 16 “good cause” standard and Rule 15(a)(2). (See ECF No. 59-4 at PageID
289–90.) Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (see ECF No. 60) provides no compelling reasoning
justifying the need to seal her Amended Complaint, nor has Plaintiff demonstrated that sealing
the entirety of the Amended Complaint is narrowly tailored to achieve any such interest.
Kondash, 767 F. App’x at 637; see also Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305–06. Although redacting

portions of the Amended Complaint may be appropriate, Plaintiff has made no such showing.
Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met her burden of overcoming the strong
presumption in favor of the openness of judicial documents.
In summary, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend her Second
Amended Complaint but DENIES her Motion to file the Amended Complaint under seal.
SO ORDERED, this 20th day of April, 2020.
/s/ Jon P. McCalla
JON P. McCALLA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10439825. Public record. Not legal advice.