McCurdy v. Auburn University et al

Filing 77

OPINION AND ORDER directing that the exhibits submitted by the defendants 65 , 66 , and 76 are unsealed, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 12/29/15. (djy, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION
DOROTHY McCURDY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
AUBURN UNIVERSITY,
et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:14cv226-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER
The issue presented in this lawsuit charging race
discrimination
submitted

in

in

employment

support

of

a

is

whether

motion

to

settlement agreement should be unsealed.

exhibits
enforce

a

For reasons

that follow, the court will unsealed and make public
the exhibits.
Plaintiff Dorothy McCurdy, who represents herself,
has

named

employees

Auburn
as

University

defendants.

She

and
has

several
charged

of
that,

its
on

account of her race, the defendants paid her less than
other employees doing comparable work, denied her a
promotion,

and

subjected

her

to

a

hostile-work

environment, all in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981a and
2000e through 2000e-17), and the Civil Rights Act of
1866, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 1981).
jurisdiction

under

42

U.S.C.

This court has

§ 2000e-5(f)(3)

(Title

VII) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) (civil rights).
The

court

defendants

sealed

submitted

a

in

number

support

of

of

exhibits

their

motion

the
to

enforce a settlement agreement they contend was entered
between them and McCurdy.
between

counsel

settlement

for

agreement;

The exhibits include emails

the

parties

emails

and

a

regarding
letter

the

regarding

McCurdy’s refusal to sign the settlement agreement; the
minutes of an on-the-record settlement conference held
before a United States Magistrate Judge; and a copy of
the purported settlement agreement.
However, the court cautioned that the exhibits were
being sealed “only conditionally or temporarily” and
that

the

“court

[would]

decide

later

whether

the

documents should remain sealed or should be unsealed.”
Order dated December 29, 2015 (doc. no. 75).
2

There is a general, but qualified common-law right
of the public to access judicial records.

Todd v.

Daewon America, Inc., 2014 WL 2608454, at *2 (M.D. Ala.
June

11,

2014).

Judicial

utmost public concern.”

records

“are

matters

of

Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc.,

480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Landmark
Commc’ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 839 (1978)).
The exhibits at issue are part of the judicial record
because they were filed with the court in support of
the

motion

to

enforce

the

settlement;

merely a product of discovery.

they

are

not

See id. (stating that

“[m]aterial filed in connection with any substantive
pretrial motion, unrelated to discovery, is subject to
the

common

documents

law

are

right

part

of

of

access.”).

the

judicial

Thus,
record,

these
and

a

qualified right a public access attaches to them.
The

general

right

of

public

access

to

judicial

records is especially strong here because the exhibits
dispositively affect the resolution of this case or how
it will ultimately be decided.

See Stalnaker v. Novar

Corp., 293 F. Supp. 2d 1260, 1264 (M.D. Ala. 2003)
3

(Thompson, J).

If the settlement is enforced, the case

will be resolved and therefore will be closed.
Moreover, the fact that the exhibits go directly to
disposition of a case against a taxpayer-funded public
institution, that is, Auburn University, reinforces the
public right of access.

See Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246

(explaining that “whether information concerns public
officials

or

public

concerns”

is

a

factor

in

determining if the public can view court documents).
Admittedly, extraordinary circumstances may justify
keeping

judicial

records

outside

Todd, 2014 WL 2608454, at *3.
may

be

a

compelling

reason

the

public

view.

In other words, there
to

deny

public

access.

Brown v. Advantage Engineering, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013,
1014 (11th Cir. 1992); see also Romero, 480 F.3d at
1246 (stating that “common law right of access may be
overcome by a showing of good cause.”).
there

is

a

compelling

interest

in

For example,

secrecy

if

trade

secrets or informants’ identities would be revealed in
judicial records, or if children’s privacy would be
affected

by

public

access
4

to

judicial

records.

Stalnaker, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 1264.
McCurdy

and

the

The mere fact that

defendants

have

agreed

to

confidentiality is not sufficiently compelling to deny
the

public

access

to

the

disposition of this case.

evidentiary

basis

for

the

See Todd, 2014 WL 2608454,

at 3 (“The mere fact that both parties have agreed to
confidentiality

of

an

agreement

is

insufficient

to

overcome the right of the public to have access to the
agreement.”).

The

parties

have

therefore

not

demonstrated any extraordinary circumstance that would
merit the sealing of these exhibits.
Accordingly, the exhibits, which were provisionally
sealed, will be unsealed.
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that the
exhibits submitted by the defendants (doc. nos. 65, 66,
and 76)) are unsealed.
DONE, this the 29th day of December, 2015.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE