BARRIENTOS et al v. CORECIVIC INC
Filing
342
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 286 Motion to Unseal Documents. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 08/28/2023 (CCL)
Case 4:18-cv-00070-CDL Document 342 Filed 08/28/23 Page 1 of 9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
WILHEN HILL BARRIENTOS, et al., *
Plaintiffs,
*
vs.
*
CORECIVIC, INC.
*
Defendant.
*
CASE NO. 4:18-CV-70 (CDL)
O R D E R
Plaintiffs and CoreCivic, Inc. jointly moved for a protective
order
to
protect
confidential,
information from public disclosure.
and
entered
the
protective
order
Protective Order, ECF No. 67.
proprietary,
and
private
The Court granted the motion
proposed
by
the
parties.
But the Court also made it clear
that “absent compelling circumstances,” protective “orders do not
apply to exclude evidence from public disclosure when that evidence
is relied upon in support of or opposition to any motion or
relevant issue in any hearing or trial.”
No. 55.
Rules 16/26 Order 9, ECF
“There is a presumption that any evidence relied upon in
a filed motion or in opposition to any such motion or to be used
in a hearing or trial shall be a public record.”
Id.
The Court
nonetheless permitted the parties to file under restricted access
certain motions and exhibits containing protected information
without
requiring
the
parties
to
go
through
the
process
of
Case 4:18-cv-00070-CDL Document 342 Filed 08/28/23 Page 2 of 9
challenging
and
defending
the
confidentiality
designations.
Plaintiffs now ask the Court to unseal certain documents that were
submitted in connection with substantive motions.1
The Court
grants in parts and denies in part the motion to unseal (ECF No.
286) to the extent set forth below.
DISCUSSION
Before Plaintiffs filed the motion to unseal, the parties
reached an agreement on how most of the documents can be made
public, with narrow redactions.
Plaintiffs do not ask that the
docket entries be unrestricted; rather, they seek permission to
refile the documents on the public docket with narrow redactions.
After Plaintiffs filed the motion to unseal, the parties reached
an agreement to unseal certain photographs of segregation cells
contained in the expert report of Pablo Stewart.
The Court GRANTS
Plaintiffs leave to refile the undisputed documents on the public
docket with narrow redactions.
Plaintiffs shall work with the
clerk’s office to ensure that the refiled documents are properly
linked to their restricted counterparts.
CoreCivic
argues
that
some
unseal should remain restricted.
documents
Plaintiffs
want
to
“The operations of the courts
and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost public
Plaintiffs presented the motion as a motion to unseal restricted
documents. They do not appear to ask the Court to review and decide on
whether a document should have been designated “confidential” under the
process outlined in the protective order for de-designating confidential
documents.
1
2
Case 4:18-cv-00070-CDL Document 342 Filed 08/28/23 Page 3 of 9
concern.” Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir.
2007) (quoting 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.”
Id.
(quoting Chicago Trib. Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263
F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001)).
This right “includes the right
to inspect and copy public records and documents.” Id. (quoting
Chicago Trib., 263 F.3d at 1311).
So, motions that are “presented
to the court to invoke its powers or affect its decisions” are
“subject to the public right of access.”
Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246
(quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir.
1995)).
In limited circumstances, though, a “party’s privacy or
proprietary interest in information . . . overcomes the interest
of the public in accessing the information.”
Id.
The party seeking to maintain confidentiality must show good
cause to keep the documents confidential. “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
3
Case 4:18-cv-00070-CDL Document 342 Filed 08/28/23 Page 4 of 9
or
public
concerns,
and
the
availability
alternative to sealing the documents.
The
documents
Plaintiffs
want
of
a
less
onerous
Id.
to
unseal
fall
into
two
categories: financial information and security information.
The
Court addresses each type of information in turn.
I.
Financial Information
Plaintiffs want the Court to unseal a handful of documents
that contain financial information that CoreCivic contends is
confidential.
The documents were all filed in connection with
Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
Securus Commission Rate (ECF No. 213-33).
the
unsealing
of
an
email
disclosing
the
Plaintiffs seek
commission
Stewart
received from its detainee telephone service provider in 2012 (ECF
No. 213-33).
Although the service provider initially agreed to
unseal the document, it has since backtracked.
Plaintiffs assert
that there is no good cause to retain the seal on the document
because the information has not been kept confidential; Plaintiffs
independently obtained the commission rate from a non-confidential
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) document.
CoreCivic
nonetheless contends that the commission it received more than ten
years ago from a telephone service provider CoreCivic contracted
with until 2017 is a confidential trade secret.
But, based on the
Court’s review, the 2012 commission rate in ECF No. 213-33 has
already been publicly disclosed by ICE.
4
See Cassler Decl. ¶ 14,
Case 4:18-cv-00070-CDL Document 342 Filed 08/28/23 Page 5 of 9
ECF No. 286-1; Casler Decl. Ex. 1, ICE phone contracts table, ECF
No. 286-3.
The Court thus finds that CoreCivic did not establish
good cause for maintaining that information as restricted.
It is
not clear to the Court whether Plaintiffs agreed to redact other
portions of ECF No. 213-33.
Plaintiffs may refile ECF No. 213-33
with the commission rate unredacted, and they shall work with the
Clerk’s office to ensure that the refiled document is properly
linked to its restricted counterpart.
Prices in 2020 Supplier Invoices (ECF No. 221-29). Plaintiffs
want the Court to unseal unit and total prices in a set of 2020
supplier
invoices
that
disclose
how
much
CoreCivic
paid
its
suppliers for things like toothbrushes, toothpaste, shampoo, and
deodorant at Stewart in 2020 (ECF No. 221-29). CoreCivic maintains
that this information should be kept confidential because it could
allow
competitors
to
interfere
with
CoreCivic’s
vendor
relationships and cause vendors to raise CoreCivic’s prices.
The document, ECF No. 221-29, was attached as Exhibit 29 to
one of the sealed depositions Plaintiffs filed in support of their
motion for class certification.
Plaintiffs
did
not
rely
on
Based on the Court’s review,
this
exhibit
in
their
class
certification motion, and they did not rely on the portions of the
deposition that addressed this exhibit.
See
Mot. for Class
Certification Attach. 4, List of Exs. in Supp. Mot. for Class
Certification, ECF No. 213-4; Mot. for Class Certification Ex. 4,
5
Case 4:18-cv-00070-CDL Document 342 Filed 08/28/23 Page 6 of 9
Brazier Dep. Excerpts, ECF No. 213-8.
Accordingly, it does not
appear that this document was presented to the Court to affect its
decisions.
Thus, the public does not have a strong interest in
accessing the information, and the Court finds that ECF No. 22129 should be kept confidential.
Plaintiffs’ motion to unseal is
DENIED as to ECF No. 221-29.
Stewart Detention Center’s Financials (ECF No. 250-4 ¶¶ 52,
54; ECF Nos. 213-12 & 221-10).
First, Plaintiffs want to unseal
two paragraphs from a declaration CoreCivic submitted as Exhibit
2 to its response to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
Paragraph 52 summarizes the annual total expenses and revenue at
Stewart, and Paragraph 54 discloses Stewart’s net income for 2009
and
2020.
Based
on
the
Court’s
review,
neither
side
cited
paragraph 52 or paragraph 54 in support of or opposition to the
class certification motion.
Accordingly, it does not appear that
this portion of the declaration was presented to the Court to
affect its decisions.
Thus, the public does not have a strong
interest in accessing the information, and the Court finds that
ECF
No.
250-4
¶¶ 52
and
54
should
be
kept
confidential.
Plaintiffs’ motion to unseal these paragraphs is DENIED.
Second, Plaintiffs want to unseal Stewart-specific expenserevenue spreadsheets, which Plaintiffs attached as Exhibit 8 to
their motion for class certification (ECF No. 213-12) and are also
on the docket as Exhibit 10 to a sealed deposition (ECF No. 221-
6
Case 4:18-cv-00070-CDL Document 342 Filed 08/28/23 Page 7 of 9
10).
Based on the Court’s review, Plaintiffs cited a snippet of
data from two pages of this 35-page spreadsheet once in their class
certification brief, to describe how CoreCivic’s annual earnings
from the operation of Stewart increased between 2009 and 2020.
The
spreadsheet
also
contains
information
about
revenue, certain expenditures, and detainee wages.
CoreCivic’s
But Plaintiffs
did not clearly rely on any of this information in support of its
motion for class certification; rather, they only relied on the
“EBITDA” lines on pages 4 and 29 (ECF No. 213-12 at 5, 30).
Those
two lines are not included in the disputed spreadsheet lines that
Plaintiffs now seek to unseal.
So, it does not appear that any
portion of the spreadsheet other than the two EBITDA lines was
presented to the Court to affect its decisions, and the public
thus does not have a strong interest in accessing this confidential
information.
Plaintiffs note that CoreCivic publicly disclosed
some information about topics captured on the spreadsheet, but
they did not establish that CoreCivic’s public disclosures amount
to a waiver for data in the confidential spreadsheet.
For these
reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to unseal certain
lines of ECF Nos. 213-12 and 221-10.
II.
Security Information
In addition to the financial information, Plaintiffs want the
Court to unseal certain documents that CoreCivic asserts contain
confidential
security
information
7
about
staffing
at
Stewart.
Case 4:18-cv-00070-CDL Document 342 Filed 08/28/23 Page 8 of 9
CoreCivic argues that publicly disclosing the staffing patterns
Plaintiffs want to unseal—including how many detention officers
are on each shift and how many detention officers are assigned to
each post—could create significant security concerns.
The Court
agrees with CoreCivic that sensitive information about management,
security operations, and unit management at a detention center
should not be made available to the public under the precise
factual circumstances of this case.2
The motion to unseal is thus
denied on this ground.
The Court notes, though, that the disputed documents contain
staffing
information
for
certain
maintenance
and
services
positions like maintenance workers, janitors, and food service
workers.
Plaintiffs contend that CoreCivic hired relatively few
non-detainee employees for these positions and instead used far
cheaper detainee workers.
At first blush, it does not appear that
such information is sensitive security information.
It is not
clear from the present record whether the attorneys conferred in
good faith on the narrow disclosure of the non-security positions
like maintenance worker, janitor, and food service worker.
They
should certainly be able to reach an agreement on these issues.
The Court thus orders the parties to confer in good faith on
If this case focused on dangerous conditions caused by detention
personnel shortages and if Plaintiffs specifically relied on all of the
detention staff numbers in a substantive motion, that might support
unsealing the staffing patterns. But this is not such a case.
2
8
Case 4:18-cv-00070-CDL Document 342 Filed 08/28/23 Page 9 of 9
whether
any
non-security
documents can be unsealed.
portions
of
the
disputed
staffing
When they reach an agreement, they
shall be permitted to refile the documents with the agreed-upon
portions unredacted; they should work with the Clerk to ensure
that the refiled documents are properly linked to their restricted
counterparts.
CONCLUSION
The motion to unseal (ECF No. 286) is granted in part and
denied in part to the extent set forth above.
refile
the
documents
with
the
agreed-upon
Plaintiffs may
narrow
redactions.
Plaintiffs shall work with the Clerk to ensure that the refiled
documents are properly linked to their restricted counterparts.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 28th day of August, 2023.
s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
9
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?