Dunn et al v. Thomas et al

Filing 2531

OPINION AND ORDER: Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiffs' motion to unseal the transcript from the hearing on April 15, 2019 (doc. no. 2495 ) is granted. The defendants shall immediately arrange to unseal the transcript in its entirety. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 5/13/2019. (kh, )

Case 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB Document 2531 Filed 05/13/19 Page 1 of 5

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his
official capacity as
Commissioner of
the Alabama Department of
Corrections, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:14cv601-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is the plaintiffs’ motion to unseal
the transcript of an in camera hearing held last month
on the question whether to unseal portions of the Warren
Averett report on correctional recruitment and retention.
See

Motion

to

Unseal

Transcript

(doc.

no.

2495).

Following the hearing, the court granted the plaintiffs’
motion to unseal the report in its entirety.

See Order

to Unseal (doc. no. 2489).
The defendants make three arguments in support of
keeping the transcript sealed.

First, the defendants

Case 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB Document 2531 Filed 05/13/19 Page 2 of 5

contend that they--and the representatives of the State
Personnel Department who they presented at the hearing-relied on the assumption that the transcript would remain
sealed when they discussed “in detail” their reasons for
opposing the unsealing of the Warren Averett report.
Defendants’ Response (doc. no. 2505) at 1-2.

Second,

they argue that unsealing the transcript will discourage
the parties from “a fully candid participation” in future
in camera proceedings.

Id. at 2.

Third, they invoke the

same argument they made for keeping the Warren Averett
report

confidential:

Unsealing

the

transcript

will

“undermine and complicate” ADOC’s ability to implement
the report’s recommendations for increasing correctional
officer compensation.

Id. at 3-4.

The defendants’ arguments are meritless. The hearing
was in camera because it addressed portions of the Warren
Averett report that, up until then, remained under seal.
This

reason

for

keeping

the

hearing

confidential

evaporated once the court unsealed the report.
2

Until

Case 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB Document 2531 Filed 05/13/19 Page 3 of 5

they responded to the plaintiffs’ motion to unseal the
hearing

transcript,

the

defendants

never

asserted

a

separate rationale for keeping the hearing confidential.
The defendants therefore had no reasonable expectation
that the transcript would remain under seal if--as was
clearly a possibility at the time of the hearing--the
court decided to unseal the report.

Such an expectation

would be particularly unreasonable given the public’s
common-law right to inspect and copy judicial documents,
see Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597
(1978), which the court has repeatedly enforced during
this case.

See also Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796,

802-804 (11th Cir. 1983) (enforcing the common-law right
to access judicial records in a class action brought by
Alabama prisoners).

Furthermore, instead of specifying

the exact parts of the transcript in which they claim to
have

an

interest

in

confidentiality,

the

defendants

vaguely assert a general concern that during the hearing
they “discussed in detail” their reasons for wanting to
3

Case 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB Document 2531 Filed 05/13/19 Page 4 of 5

keep the Warren Averett report sealed.

Defendants’

Response (doc. no. 2505) at 2.
Finally, the defendants’ argument that unsealing the
transcript will “undermine and complicate” ADOC’s ability
to implement the Warren Averett report’s recommendations
is undercut by the representations made at the hearing
by defense counsel and the representatives from the State
Personnel Department whom they presented.

Specifically,

defense counsel and the representatives indicated that,
rather than implementing the report’s recommendations,
ADOC would be seeking compensation increases that are
materially

lower

Averett.

The

implement

the

than

those

defendants

recommended

cannot

recommendations

invoke
while

by

the

Warren
need

to

simultaneously

indicating to the court that they are not seeking to
implement them.
In sum, the court finds that the public’s interest
in accessing the transcript outweighs the defendants’

4

Case 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB Document 2531 Filed 05/13/19 Page 5 of 5

interest in keeping it confidential.

See Romero v.

Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007).

***
Accordingly,

it

is

ORDERED

that

the

plaintiffs’

motion to unseal the transcript from the hearing on April
15, 2019 (doc. no. 2495) is granted.

The defendants

shall immediately arrange to unseal the transcript in its
entirety.
DONE, this the 13th day of May, 2019.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5