# Goodykoontz v. State Of Ohio

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · October 28, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10665602

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** October 28, 2024
- **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/10665602

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

DAVID GOODYKOONTZ, Case No. 1:24-cv-145
Plaintiff, Barrett, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
vs.

STATE OF OHIO, ORDER
Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion asking the Court to proceed with his
lawsuit (Doc. 13) and his motion to seal all documents in this case (Doc. 15). Plaintiff appears to
have filed the first motion before his receipt of the Court’s Order and Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 11) (issued one day prior to his motion), which allowed certain of
plaintiff’s claims to proceed and recommended dismissal of others. As such, plaintiff’s first
motion (Doc. 13) is DENIED as moot.
In plaintiff’s second motion, he asks the Court to seal all of the documents in the case
because he is an “undercover agent” and wants to limit access to information about his
“cooperation with the federal government. . . .” (Doc. 15). Under Local Rule 5.2.1(a), “parties
may not file documents under seal without obtaining leave of Court upon motion and for good
cause shown.” 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 Group, 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 Sixth Circuit recognizes certain content-based exceptions to the presumption of

openness related to “certain privacy rights of participants or third parties. . . .” Brahmamdam v.
TriHealth, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-152, 2021 WL 5005368, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 27, 2021) (quoting
Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1179). In the context of civil litigation, this exception is
generally limited to “only trade secrets, information covered by a recognized privilege, and
information required by statute to be maintained in confidence. . . .” Id. (quoting Reese on
Behalf of Fifth Third Bancorp v. Carmichael, No. 1:20-cv-886, 2020 WL 6810921, at *1 (S.D.
Ohio Nov. 16, 2020)).
Plaintiff’s motion does not meet the standard set forth above. To be granted the relief
sought, plaintiff must file a motion explaining, with specificity, why particular documents should
be sealed pursuant to the factors articulated by the Sixth Circuit in Shane Group. There is a
heavy burden associated with overcoming the presumption of openness; the proponent of sealing
must justify its position document-by-document with reference to specific reasons and/or legal
citations. Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305-06.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion to seal (Doc. 15) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 10/28/2024 Hern je RethonD-
Karen L. Litkovitz
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10665602. Public record. Not legal advice.