Oliver v. Dothan City Board of Education (MAG+)

Filing 16

ORDER: it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's 15 Motion to Seal is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Judge William Keith Watkins on 9/4/2019. (kr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHERRYL OLIVER,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOTHAN CITY BOARD OF
EDUCATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) CASE NO. 1:16-CV-677-WKW
)
[WO]
)
)
)
)
ORDER

Before the court is Plaintiff’s pro se motion to seal this lawsuit (Doc. # 15),
in which Plaintiff brought Title VII race and gender discrimination claims against
her former employer, the Dothan City Board of Education (Doc. # 8). After finding
that Plaintiff’s Title VII claims were time-barred, the court dismissed those claims
and declined jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law defamation claim. (See Docs.
# 11, 12.) Plaintiff now asks the court to seal the case because she is a teacher
seeking a job and “[f]uture employers don’t need to see this information.” (Doc.
# 15.) She also notes that a human resources employee at her former school found
this case and informed her principal. For the reasons below, the motion will be
denied.
“The operations of the courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of
utmost public concern.” Landmark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 839

(1978). “The common-law right of access to judicial proceedings, an essential
component of our system of justice, is instrumental in securing the integrity of the
process.” Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311
(11th Cir. 2001) (citing Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 564–
74 (1980)). Title VII cases are no exception. See Southern Methodist Univ. Ass’n
of Women Law Students v. Wynne & Jaffe, 599 F.2d 707, 712 (5th Cir. 1979).
The court may, however, seal filings for good cause. Romero v. Drummond
Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007). Good cause is determined by “the
nature and character of the information in question,” Chicago Tribune Co., 263 F.3d
at 1315, and the court must balance “the public interest in accessing court documents
against a party’s interest in keeping the information confidential,” considering
whether allowing access would impair court functions or harm
legitimate privacy interests, the degree of and likelihood of injury if
made public, the reliability of the information, whether there will be an
opportunity to respond to the information, whether the information
concerns public officials or public concerns, and the availability of a
less onerous alternative to sealing the documents.
Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246. “A party’s privacy or proprietary interest in information
sometimes overcomes the interest of the public in accessing the information.” Id.
(citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)).
Plaintiff has not shown good cause for sealing any documents in this case.
Her request is to seal the entire case “from the internet, government publishing, [and]
googlers.” (Doc. # 15.) That request in and of itself is far too broad. Plaintiff has
2

not pointed to any specific document, which, if not sealed, may harm her or another
party.
Nor has she identified any legitimate privacy concerns to justify sealing any
part of the case. Plaintiff does not point to any filings that contain confidential
information. Plaintiff’s only explanation is that her employment opportunities may
be harmed by the existence of the lawsuit. Were the court to agree that a case may
be sealed over no more than a party’s concern about how it would be perceived by
others, the public would have the benefit of very few judicial decisions. Plaintiff’s
position is simply a consequence of choosing to litigate. The subject matter of this
lawsuit — a race and gender discrimination claim against a public entity — is of the
utmost public concern. While some court filings deserve special treatment, Plaintiff
has not demonstrated that any of the filings in this case fit within that category.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to seal (Doc. # 15) is
DENIED.
DONE this 4th day of September, 2019.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3