Seals v. Aistrup

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

ALAN SEALS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

) Case No. 3:19-cv-468-RAH

STEVEN LEATH, et al., ) (WO)

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

On October 20, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a summary judgment response (Doc.

81), several evidentiary documents (Doc. 82), and a notice of filing evidentiary

submission (Doc. 83) under seal, citing their designation as “confidential” under

the Consent Protective Order (Doc. 45) issued on March 8, 2021. The Plaintiff,

however, did not file a redacted copy as required by M.D. Ala. LR 5.2, nor has

Plaintiff shown why these materials, in full, should be filed and maintained under

seal.

Local Rule 5.2 sets forth the obligations by parties and their counsel to

redact personal identifying information in documents filed with the Court. (See

M.D. Ala. LR 5.2.) The rule 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 allow, as

the Plaintiff has done, a party to file an entire brief or evidentiary submission under

seal without also filing a redacted version. Indeed, public access goals counter

against it.

“The court's operation is of ‘utmost public concern.’” Henderson v.

Goodyear Dunlop Tires N. Am., Ltd., No. 3:11-CV-295-WKW, 2013 WL

12246717, at *1 (M.D. Ala. May 9, 2013) (quoting Romero v. Drummond Co., 480

F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations omitted)). “Its business is

‘presumptively public.’” Id. (quoting Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v.

CBS, Inc., 184 F.Supp.2d 1353, 1362 (N.D. Ga. 2002)). “Judges deliberate in

private but issue public decisions after public arguments based on public records.”

King, 184 F.Supp.2d at 1362. “Once a matter is brought before a court for

resolution, it is no longer solely the parties' case, but also the public's case.” Brown

v. Advantage Eng'g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992).

“There is a limited First Amendment right of access to civil trial

proceedings.” McCall v. Montgomery Hous. Auth., No. 2:10–cv–367–MEF, 2011

WL 4390049, at *1 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 21, 2011) (citing Chicago Tribune Co. v.

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1310 (11th Cir. 2001)). “In addition,

the public has a common law right to inspect and copy judicial records, although

the right is not absolute.” Id. (citing Nixon v. Warner Comms., Inc., 435 U.S. 589,

597-98 (1978)). “Absent a showing that the interests of non-disclosure outweigh

the public's common law right of access, courts often deny even joint motions to

seal in civil cases.” Id. (citing as examples Baxter Int'l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs, 297

F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2002) (denying joint motion to maintain certain documents

under seal); Jaufre ex rel. Jaufre v. Taylor, 351 F.Supp.2d 514 (E.D. La. 2005)

(denying joint motion to seal court record); and Stamp v. Overnite Transp. Co.,

1998 WL 229538 (D. Kan. Apr. 10, 1998) (denying joint motion to seal court

record)).

The “mere existence of a protective order does not automatically override

the public's right of access; instead, the party seeking to maintain secrecy ‘must

establish good cause for continued protection under Rule 26.’” Suell v. U.S., 32

F.Supp.3d 1190, 1192 (S.D. Ala 2014) (quoting Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d at

1313). “Courts routinely recognize that the existence of a protective order does not

answer the question whether documents subject to a constitutional or common-law

right of access may be sealed.” Id. at 1192 n.1; see also Reed v. Chase Home Fin.,

LLC, No. 11–0412–WS–C, 2012 WL 4434751, at *1 n.1 (S.D. Ala. Sept. 26, 2012)

(noting that a court has authority to review, sua sponte, the propriety of filing

under seal pursuant to its power to manage its own records and files). “An agreed

[or stipulated] protective order merely postpones the need to litigate good cause

document by document.” Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1307.

“The good cause standard here parallels the ‘good cause’ standard of Rule

26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing protective orders.”

Garrity, 2012 WL 5679896 at *1 (citing Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1312).

Under Rule 26(c), a movant must make a particularized showing of “good cause”

and a specific demonstration of fact by affidavit or testimony of a witness with

personal knowledge, of the specific harm that would result from disclosure or loss

of confidentiality; generalities, conclusory statements, and unsupported contentions

do not suffice. Lohr v. Zehner, No. 2:12cv533-MHT, 2014 WL 12742197, at *1

(M.D. Ala. March 6, 2014) (citing Bandsuch v. Werner Enters., Inc., No. 2:05–cv–

305–FTM–99SPC, 2010 WL 2791706, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 14, 2010)).

In this case, the Plaintiff has provided no specific explanations, evidence, or

declarations that demonstrate why his responsive brief and evidentiary submission

should be sealed in their entirety. The fact that the parties previously designated

the submission-related documents as confidential under an agreed or consent

protective order does not excuse the Plaintiff from complying with LR 5.2 or from

having to show why a filing (in this case, a summary judgment responsive brief

and submission), in whole or in part, should be filed and maintained under seal.

See Theriot v. Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co., 382 F. Supp. 3d 1255 (M.D. Ala.

2019) (finding defendants failed to make a particularized showing of the specific

harm that would result from loss of confidentiality on the documents at issue and

how that harm outweighed the interest of the public in accessing the information).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED as follows:

(1) Properly redacted copies of the sealed documents (Docs. 81, 82, and 83),

including any attached evidentiary records, shall be filed on or by November 30,

2021, in accordance with M.D. Ala. LR 5.2; and

(2) To the extent Plaintiff believes the documents should remain under seal,

on or by November 30, 2021, the Plaintiff shall demonstrate good cause why they

should remain under seal and should not be open to the public for inspection.

DONE, on this the 16th day of November, 2021.

/s/ R. Austin Huffaker, Jr.

R. AUSTIN HUFFAKER, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE