McQuilliams et al v. International Auto Logistics, LLC

Filing 93

ORDER granting the parties' 91 and 92 Motions to Seal Document. The Clerk is hereby DIRECTED to file Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Memorandum Brief in Support and its attachments, as well as Defendant's Motio n to Certify Class and its attachments thereto UNDER SEAL until further Order of the Court. This sealing order extends only to the contents of the underlying filing. The documents which already have been filed under seal shall REMAIN under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 8/11/2016. (ca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
BRUNSWICK DIVISION

CAPT. JOHN MCQUILLIAMS, Individually,
and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated;
CAPT. JASON SMITH, Individually, and on
Behalf of Others Similarly Situated; MSGT.
PATRICK MCKIMMIE, Individually, and on
Behalf of Others Similarly Situated; NANCY
SWENSON, Individually, and on Behalf of
Others Similarly Situated; CAPT. MICHAEL
CLEVELAND, Individually, and on Behalf of
Others Similarly Situated; and DEBRA
GILBERTSON, Individually, and on Behalf of
Others Similarly Situated,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:14-cv-124

Plaintiffs,
v.
INTERNATIONAL AUTO LOGISTICS, LLC,
Defendant.

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motions to File Under Seal.
(Docs. 91, 92). For the reasons set forth below, the parties’ Motions are GRANTED.
The parties request that Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleading and
Memorandum Brief in Support and its attachments, as well as Defendant’s Motion to Certify
Class and its attachments be filed under seal. The right of access to judicial records pursuant to
common law is well-established. See Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597
(1978); see also Brown v. Advantage Eng’g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992). This
right extends to the inspection and the copying of court records and documents. See Nixon, 435
U.S. at 597. The right to access, however, is not absolute. See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior

Court for Norfolk Cty., 457 U.S. 596, 598 (1982). When deciding whether to grant a party’s
motion to seal, the court is required to balance the historical presumption of access against any
significant interests raised by the party seeking to file under seal. See Chicago Tribune Co. v.
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001); Newman v. Graddick, 696
F.2d 796, 803 (11th Cir. 1983). In balancing the interests, courts consider, among other things:
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., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2005).

Additionally, “[a] party’s privacy or proprietary interest in information sometimes overcomes the
interest of the public in accessing the information.” Id. (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.)
This Court’s Local Rule 79.7 sets forth procedures for a party to request that documents
be filed under seal. This Court does not allow the automatic filing of documents under seal.
Rather, a “person desiring to have any matter placed under seal shall present a motion setting
forth the grounds why the matter presented should not be available for public inspection.” Local
R. 79.7. If the Court denies the Motion to Seal, the Clerk of the Court shall return the materials
which the person sought to file under seal, and the person then has the option of filing the
materials on the Court’s open docket. Id.
The parties have shown good cause for filing Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleading and Memorandum Brief in Support and its attachments, as well as
Defendant’s Motion to Certify Class and its attachments under seal. The parties have established
that sealing these records is necessary to protect Defendant’s proprietary information and

2

information that implicates national security interests.

Furthermore, having reviewed these

records, the Court finds that the need to seal these records outweighs the public’s interest in
accessing these records. For these reasons, the parties’ Motions to Seal, (docs. 91, 92) are
GRANTED.

The Clerk of Court is hereby DIRECTED to file Defendant’s Motion for

Judgment on the Pleading and Memorandum Brief in Support and its attachments, as well as
Defendant’s Motion to Certify Class and its attachments thereto UNDER SEAL until further
Order of this Court. This sealing order extends only to the contents of the underlying filing. The
documents which already have been filed under seal shall REMAIN under seal.
SO ORDERED, this 11th day of August, 2016.

R. STAN BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3