Logan v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Company
Filing
481
OPINION & ORDER: Court ORDERS (1) Cooper Tire's 473 SEALED MOTION to clarify is DENIED; (2) Pla's Motion for atty's fees is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and (3) WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS OF ENTRY OF THIS ORDER, Cooper Tire may file motion to seal portions of the trial transcript. Signed by Judge Jennifer B. Coffman on 09/06/2012.(DAK)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-3-KSF
KIM LOGAN, as Legal Guardian for
JAMES O. GUMM, JR.
PLAINTIFF
and
KENTUCKY CABINET FOR
HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES,
THE UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
AND KENTUCKY MEDICAL SERVICES
FOUNDATION
v.
INTERVENING PLAINTIFFS
OPINION & ORDER
COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY
DEFENDANT
**********
This matter is before the Court upon the motion [DE #473] of the defendant,
Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, to clarify the Court’s May 21, 2012, Order [DE #472]
and to provide counsel guidance as to the appropriate treatment of the sealed
transcription of the partial trial proceedings in this case. The plaintiff, Kim Logan, as
Legal Guardian for James O. Gumm, Jr., has filed her response objecting to Cooper
Tire’s motion, as well as a motion for costs [DE #476]. These motions are now ripe
for review.
The trial of this products liability action commenced on April 10, 2012. Both
1
before jury selection and after the jury was dismissed for the day, the Court held a
conference with the parties and their attorneys in open court to announce rulings on
several pending motions. In most cases, the rulings were announced after argument
from the parties’ counsel. The sealed trial transcript contains the Court’s detailed
discussion of and rationale for these rulings. The next day, April 11, 2012, the Court
was informed that the parties had reached a settlement.
As part of the settlement agreement, the plaintiff agreed not to oppose Cooper
Tire’s “motion to maintain the sealing of the record as to any confidential materials .
. . but that is to the exclusion of any rulings that Her Honor has made thus far.” [DE
#471, Trial Transcript, p. 7, ln10-13]. In accordance with regular practice, the Court
entered its Order on April 11, 2012, setting forth its rulings with regard to the motions
resolved at the conference with the parties on April 10, 2012 [DE #460].
The parties have been unable to agree on what portions, if any, of the trial
transcript should remain sealed. Cooper Tire contends that because the Court’s April
11, 2012, Order sets forth the rulings of the Court, the entire trial transcript should
remain sealed and that Cooper Tire has no obligation to engage in further review of the
transcript to designate the portions which do not relate to the Court’s rulings. The
Court disagrees.
There is a common law right to view court documents. Nixon v. Warner
Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978).
Throughout our history, the open courtroom has been a fundamental
feature of the American judicial system. Basic principles have emerged
2
to guide judicial discretion respecting public access to judicial
proceedings. These principles apply as well to the determination of
whether to permit access to information contained in court documents
because court records often provide important, sometime the only, bases
or explanations for a court’s decision.
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission, 710 F.2d 1165,
1178 (6th Cir. 1983)(stating such background in considering whether to seal court
records). Further, “[t]he resolution of private disputes frequently involves issues and
remedies affecting third parties or the general public. The community catharsis, which
can only occur if the public can watch and participate, is also necessary in civil cases.”
Id. at 1179. While the right of access has exceptions, including “certain privacy rights
of participants or third parties, trade secrets and national security . . . [s]imply showing
that the information would harm the company’s reputation is not sufficient to
overcome the strong common law presumption in favor of public access to court
proceedings and records.” Id.
Cooper Tire’s efforts to seal the entire trial process are not well taken. The
parties clearly agreed that the Court’s rulings would not be sealed. The fact that the
Court issued a brief Order setting forth the rulings made in open court does not justify
sealing the entire trial transcript. The trial transcript contains not only the Court’s
rulings, but detailed discussions and explanations of the rationale for each ruling.
Cooper Tire cannot point to any trade secrets or other exception to the right of access
explained above which would justify sealing this entire transcript. While the parties
may have agreed throughout this litigation to overzealous sealing of the record, the
3
Court is the ultimate decision-maker regarding sealing any portion of the record from
public disclosure. Citizens First National Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178
F.3d 943, 945 (7th Cir. 1999).
Accordingly, Cooper Tire is not entitled to the relief it seeks in its motion to
clarify. In order for the Court to seal any portion of the trial transcript, Cooper Tire
shall file, within fifteen days of entry of this Opinion & Order, an appropriate motion,
identifying the portions of the trial transcript it seeks to seal, and providing supporting
authority for the sealing in accordance with the common law presumption in favor of
public access to court proceedings. Response and reply times will run per the Joint
Local Rules. The Court will then determine which portions of the trial transcript, if
any, shall remain under seal.
The plaintiff has moved for costs based on Cooper Tire’s failure to conduct the
review of the transcript and to provide the designations as required by the parties’
settlement agreement. The Court will deny the motion for costs without prejudice at
this time, but encourages the plaintiff to re-file the motion should Cooper Tire fail, in
any way, to fully comply with this Opinion & Order.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1)
Cooper Tire’s motion to clarify [DE #473] is DENIED;
(2)
the Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE; and
(3)
WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS OF ENTRY OF THIS ORDER, Cooper Tire may file
a motion to seal portions of the trial transcript.
4
Signed on September 6, 2012
5
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?