The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
JOSEPH WEST, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
) Case No. 2:18-cv-1061-RAH
BUTLER COUNTY ) (WO)
BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Defendants’ Joint Motion to File
Summary Judgment Evidentiary Submission Under Seal Pursuant to M.D. Ala. LR 5.2
(“Motion”) (Doc. 144), filed on July 30, 2020, on which the Court conducted a
telephone hearing on July 31, 2020. The Motion cites M.D. Alabama Local Rule 5.2
(M.D. Ala. LR 5.2) and requests permission for the Defendants to file their entire
summary judgment evidentiary submissions, which are due today under the Court’s
Order of June 19, 2020, (see Doc. 141), under seal because their evidentiary
submissions contain certain documents that in turn contain personal identifying
information of parties and nonparties. (Doc. 144.) As the Motion reflects, the
Defendants do not offer to file a redacted copy of their submissions as an open record
because of the time, trouble and expense associated with redacting the thousands upon
thousands of documents1 that they intend to file in support of their summary judgment
motions.
M.D. Ala. LR 5.2 governs the outcome of the Motion. It sets forth
obligations by parties and their counsel to redact personal identifying information in
documents filed with the Court. (See M.D. Ala. LR 5.2.) It permits a party to choose to
file under seal either a reference list of information that is to be redacted or an unredacted
copy of the submission. (See M.D. Ala. LR 5.2(b).) In either scenario, the filing party
must file as an open record his or her submission in a redacted form. The rule is drafted
in this manner in order properly balance the confidentiality of personal identifying
information against the need for public access to judicial records. See Williams v. Macon
County Greyhound Park, Inc., No. 3:10–CV–191–WKW, 2012 WL 3827800 (M.D. Ala.
Sept. 4, 2012) (denying the plaintiffs’ request for permission to seal their entire
evidentiary submission because courts have an obligation to protect the public’s right to
access judicial records). The rule does not, as the Defendants request, allow a party to
file an evidentiary submission under seal without also filing a redacted version. Indeed,
public access goals counter against it.
Accordingly, the Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part
as follows:
1 During the hearing, the Defendants stated that their evidentiary submissions will include over
10,000 pages of documents including copies of the entire transcripts of the depositions taken in
this case. When asked by the Court whether the forthcoming submissions are actually limited to
those documents necessary to support their summary judgment motions (instead of a voluminous
document dump that the Court must later sift through), the Defendants gave very little assurances
that they had undertaken the efforts to specifically tailor their submissions.
(1) The Defendants’ Motion, (Doc. 144), is GRANTED to the extent the
Defendants seek leave of court to file their evidentiary submissions under seal. To enable
meeting today’s deadline for filing dispositive motions, and in light of COVID-19 related
restrictions on courthouse access for paper submissions, and considering the volume of
documents to be filed, defense counsel shall electronically file an unredacted version of
their sealed submission with the clerk’s office. The clerk shall immediately restrict access
to the sealed documents after they are filed to facilitate the Court’s order granting the
motion for leave to file under seal. Counsel then shall contact the clerk’s office by
telephone in order to facilitate the immediate sealing of each submission.
(2) The Defendants’ Motion, (Doc. 144), is DENIED to the extent the
Defendants seek to be excused from their obligations under M.D. Ala. LR 5.2 from filing
a redacted copy of their evidentiary submissions.
(3) While M.D. Ala. LR 5.2 requires the Defendants to simultaneously file a
redacted copy with their summary judgment motions, briefs, and evidentiary
submissions, the Defendants are relieved of that obligation. Instead, a properly redacted
copy of these sealed documents shall be submitted to the clerk’s office, along with a
certificate of compliance with the Court’s order, on or by August 17, 2020.
(4) The parties are also ordered to provide the Court with a courtesy copy
of their file-stamped summary judgment filings (unredacted), including evidentiary
submissions, in appropriately marked 3-ring binders. This includes any responsive
filings by the Plaintiffs.
DONE, this the 31st day of July, 2020.
/s/ R. Austin Huffaker, Jr.
R. AUSTIN HUFFAKER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE