Mykins v. Alabama Department of Human Resources (DHR) et al
Order granting in part denying in part 45 MOTION for leave to Seal Document filed by defendants. Defendants are ordered by 12/19/2012 to refile Exhibits 17-26 redacting only the minors' names to initials. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 12/12/2012. Copy mailed to Plaintiff. (tgw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
ROSA MYKINS, etc.,
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN RESOURCES, etc., et al.,
)CIVIL ACTION 11-0264-WS-M
This matter is before the Court on the defendants’ motion to file evidentiary
materials under seal. (Doc. 45). The Court by previous order identified certain
exhibits as to which the defendants had met their burden of showing good cause
for placing the material under seal and ordered the defendants to file a
supplemental brief adequately addressing the remainder. (Doc. 47). The
defendants have submitted a supplemental brief, (Doc. 48), and their motion is
ripe for resolution.
The plaintiff in this lawsuit challenges the conduct of the defendants in
connection with certain visitation, custody and adoption decisions involving the
plaintiff’s minor granddaughter. In support of their motion for summary
judgment, the defendants have filed, under seal, certain records of the Department
of Human Resources, the granddaughter’s birth certificate, and filings in the
Juvenile Court proceedings. The Court’s previous order found good cause for
maintaining these documents under seal due to various Alabama statutes
addressing their confidentiality.
The defendants have also submitted filings from the Probate Court
proceedings concerning the adoption. (Doc. 45, Exhibits 9-16). The defendants
previously cited no Alabama statute addressing such documents, but they now
point to Alabama Code § 26-10A-31. The Court is satisfied that sealing of the
Probate Court records is appropriate in light of this provision.
The balance of the defendants’ submitted exhibits are filings in the statecourt litigation that preceded this action. (Doc. 45, Exhibits 17-26). As set forth
in the Court’s order granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, these
records form the basis of the defendants’ successful argument that this action is
barred by res judicata, since it is an essentially identical repeat of the plaintiff’s
dismissed state lawsuit.
The defendants do not contend that any Alabama statute provides good
cause for keeping the Circuit Court filings under seal. Instead, they ask the Court
to perform the balancing envisioned by the good-cause standard. (Doc. 48 at 2).
In balancing the public interest in accessing court documents against
a party’s interest in keeping the information confidential, courts
consider, among other factors, 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 v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007). The defendants
invoke only one of these factors and identify no additional factors not on this list.
They argue that the privacy interests of the minor granddaughter, and of two other
granddaughters named in certain of the exhibits, “should outweigh any third
party’s interest in viewing” the Circuit Court filings. (Doc. 48 at 2).
To support this proposition, the defendants assert that the Circuit Court
filings “reference in detail matters related to the juvenile and probate
proceedings.” (Doc. 48 at 3). Actually, only the original and amended complaints
do so, and even they do not reference in detail the juvenile and probate
proceedings themselves, which is what the Alabama statutes protect. What these
pleadings focus on is the alleged conduct of the defendants outside the formal
proceedings and their alleged efforts to prevent the plaintiff from obtaining
visitation, custody or adoption due to her race. The defendants do not explain the
minors’ interest in having these allegations remain under seal. Nor do they
explain why, if this privacy interest is so strong, they previously filed the very
same Circuit Court filings in this case, unsealed and with only minor redactions.
(Doc. 10, Exhibits 18-30).
“[D]ecisions less central to merits resolutions implicate lesser right-toaccess considerations.” Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246 (internal quotes omitted). The
Circuit Court filings, and especially the amended complaint, the defendants’
motion to dismiss, and the trial court’s order granting the motion, were absolutely
critical to the Court’s resolution of the defendants’ successful res judicata
argument, since without them the Court could not have determined whether the
order was an adjudication on the merits of a cause of action presented in this case
by the same plaintiff against the same defendants. The centrality of the documents
to the resolution of this action weighs in favor of unsealing them.
The Court is also to weigh “the availability of a less onerous alternative to
sealing the documents.” Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246. The defendants request that
the names of the three minors be redacted if the Circuit Court filings are not kept
sealed in their entirety. (Doc. 48 at 3). Under Rule 5.2(a), the name of an
individual known to be a minor should not be used in a court filing but only the
minor’s initials. This general rule does not apply if the Circuit Court filings
constitute “the official record of a state-court proceeding” or “the record of a court
or tribunal, if that record was not subject to the redaction requirement when
originally filed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(b)(3), (4). But even if the general rule does
not apply, the Court may for good cause “require the redaction of additional
information.” Id. Rule 5.2(e)(1).
For the reasons set forth above and in the Court’s previous order, the
defendants’ motion to file evidentiary materials under seal is granted with respect
to Exhibits 1-16 and 27 and denied with respect to Exhibits 17-26. The
defendants are ordered to re-file Exhibits 17-26 on or before December 19, 2012,
redacting only the minors’ names to initials. No final judgment will be entered
before the defendants comply with this order.
DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of December, 2012.
s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?