Fowler

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

STACEY R. FOWLER,

:

:

Plaintiff,

:

: Case No. 2:23-cv-03172

v.

: Judge Algenon L. Marbley

: Magistrate Judge S. Courter M. Shimeall

:

AT&T INC., et al.,

:

:

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Stacy Fowler’s Motion for Leave to File Documents

Under Seal. (ECF No. 37.) For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE to re-filing.

I.

There is a strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial records. Stanley v. Turner

Oil & Gas Properties, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-386, 2017 WL 5068444, at *1 (S.D. Ohio July 24, 2017).

The Sixth Circuit has directed that documents filed with the Court may be placed under seal only

for “the most compelling reasons.” Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825

F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting In re Knoxville News–Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th

Cir. 1983)). “A movant’s obligation to provide compelling reasons justifying the seal exists even

if the parties themselves agree the filings should be sealed.” White v. Wilberforce Univ., No. 1:16-

CV-1165, 2017 WL 3537233, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 17, 2017) (emphasis in original) (citing Rudd

Equip. Co., Inc. v. John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co., 834 F.3d 589, 595 (6th Cir. 2016)).

To overcome that strong presumption of openness, a party seeking to seal court records

“must show 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.” Kondash v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 767 F. App’x 635, 637 (6th Cir. 2019). The parties

seeking to seal documents must further demonstrate “document-by-document, line-by-line” why

they meet their burden to seal. Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 308. The party seeking the seal must

therefore “analyze in detail, document by document, the propriety of secrecy, providing reasons

and legal citations.” Id. at 305–06 (quoting Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 548

(7th Cir. 2002)). These reasons and legal citations must be sufficient for a district court to “set

forth specific findings and conclusions which justify nondisclosure to the public.” Rudd Equip.

Co., 834 F.3d at 594 (citations and quotations omitted).

Generally “in 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.” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 308 (cleaned up). “[T]he

privacy interests of innocent third parties” can also be a serious consideration for sealing. Id.

Ultimately, the moving party must demonstrate 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). Moreover, simply filing redacted public

versions of the documents does not absolve the moving party from conducting this document-

specific and narrowly tailored analysis. Instead, the Sixth Circuit’s “heavy burden” for sealing

“applies equally to both sealing and redacting documents from the public record.” NFocus

Consulting Inc. v. Uhl, No. 2:20-CV-5106, 2020 WL 12687859, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 29,

2020) (citing Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305–06).

II.

Plaintiff seeks to file under seal certain Exhibits used in support of her Motion to Vacate

the Arbitration Award (ECF No. 38), on the grounds that such exhibits were marked confidential

in the arbitration proceeding pursuant to the parties’ stipulated protective order. This Court has

previously found such cursory justifications to be insufficient. See Atlas Indus. Contractors,

L.L.C. v. In2Gro Techs., LLC, No. 2:19-cv-2705, 2020 WL 8675816, at *1 (S.D. Ohio July 29,

2020) (“The parties’ agreement to maintain confidentiality, standing alone, does not constitute a

compelling reason for filing under seal.”); Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d

1165, 1180 (6th Cir. 1983) (holding that a “confidentiality agreement between the parties does not

bind the court in any way”); see also Blank v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2:19-CV-18, 2020

WL 8816187, at *1 (S.D. Ohio June 24, 2020) (“[E]ven where documents are designated

‘Confidential,’ the moving party must provide compelling reasons justifying the sealing of those

documents.”); First Star Logistics, LLC v. Bernard, No. 1:16-CV-1070, 2018 WL 11366934, at

*2 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 20, 2018) (rejecting the argument that the parties’ designation of the documents

as confidential is a sufficient reason to seal them). This includes in the arbitration context. See

Hunt v. AT&T Inc., No. 2:23-CV-04035, 2026 WL 904621, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 2, 2026)

(“[C]onfidentiality agreements entered in connection with arbitration proceedings do not

automatically justify sealing documents in litigation.” (quoting Schnatter v. 247 Grp., LLC, No.

3:20-CV-00003-BJB-CHL, 2024 WL 3165317, at *2 (W.D. Ky. June 25, 2024) (collecting cases)).

Likewise, Plaintiff has failed to provide compelling reasons why wholesale sealing, rather

than narrowly tailored redactions, is necessary. See Prof’l Investigating and Consulting Agency,

Inc. v. SOS Sec. LLC, No. 2:19-cv-3304, 2022 WL 16706688, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 4,

2022) (finding that sealing an entire exhibit unnecessary when confidential business information

could be redacted); Cf. Total Quality Logistics, LLC v. Riffe, No. 1:19-cv-23, 2020 WL 5849408,

at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2020) (finding a sealing request to be narrowly tailored when the parties

did “not seek to seal the contents of the documents at issue completely. . . . Thus, the seal [was]

no broader than necessary to address the compelling reason for non-disclosure.”).

III.

In sum, Plaintiff has failed to meet her high burden of demonstrating a compelling interest

in sealing the documents at issue that outweighs the public’s interest, and she has failed to explain

how such a request is narrowly tailored. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal is

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling. (ECF No. 37.) Within FOURTEEN DAYS,

however, Plaintiff must either: (1) file a renewed and well-supported motion to seal that comports

with the Shane Group standard, or (2) file unredacted versions of the documents on the public

docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ S. Courter M. Shimeall

S. COURTER M. SHIMEALL

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE