Morris et al v. Tyson Chicken Inc et al
Filing
205
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by Senior Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 5/22/20 granting 176 Motion to Seal Document 176 MOTION for Leave to Seal Document, 195 MOTION for Leave to Seal Document 194 Reply to Response to Motion; granting 195 Motion to Seal Document cc: Counsel(DJT)
Case 4:15-cv-00077-JHM-HBB Document 205 Filed 05/22/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 2958
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
OWENSBORO DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO: 4:15-CV-00077-JHM
CHARLES MORRIS, et al.
PLAINTIFFS
V.
TYSON CHICKEN, INC., et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Seal Financial Information
[DN 176] and Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Exhibit 2 Under Seal [DN 195]. Fully briefed,
the matter is ripe for decision. For the following reasons, both motions are GRANTED.
I.
BACKGROUND
Defendants’ expert, Jason Anderson, reviewed Plaintiffs’ tax returns and various financial
statements. [DN 174-3 at 1]. When Plaintiffs moved to exclude Anderson’s testimony, they included
Anderson’s report with some redacted financial information. [DN 174-3].1 For its motion currently
before the Court, Plaintiffs have included as an exhibit an unredacted version of Anderson’s report.
[DN 176-2]. Plaintiffs seek leave to seal their financial information in the report. [DN 176 at 1].
Defendants seek leave to file Anderson’s report under seal for the reasons included Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Leave to Seal Financial Information. [DN 195].
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) allows courts to order that a filing be made under seal
without redaction. Local Rule 5.6 also permits a party to move to file a document under seal. The
Sixth Circuit “recognize[s] . . . a ‘strong presumption in favor of openness’ as to court records.”
1
Defendants have also filed a redacted version of Anderson’s report. [DN 194-2].
Case 4:15-cv-00077-JHM-HBB Document 205 Filed 05/22/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 2959
Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (citation
omitted). The party that seeks to seal the records bears the heavy burden of overcoming that
presumption where “[o]nly the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial
records.” Id. (citations omitted). “To meet this burden, the party must show three things: (1) a
compelling interest in sealing the records; (2) that the interest in sealing outweighs the public’s
interest in accessing the records; and (3) that the request is narrowly tailored. Kondash v. Kia Motors
Am., Inc., 767 F. App'x 635, 637 (6th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). “Where a party can show a
compelling reason for sealing, the party must then show why those reasons outweigh the public
interest in access to those records and that the seal is narrowly tailored to serve that reason.” Id. at
637 (citation omitted). “To do so, the party must ‘analyze in detail, document by document, the
propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.’” Id. (citation omitted). If a district court
opts to seal court records, “it must set forth specific findings and conclusions ‘which justify
nondisclosure to the public.’” Rudd Equip. Co., Inc. v. John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co., 834 F.3d
589, 594 (6th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).
III.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs argue that the financial information in Anderson’s report that they seek to seal is the
type of information where the privacy interests outweigh the public’s right to know. [DN 176 at 3].
They also contend that they have narrowly tailored their request to only personal financial data. [Id.
at 4].
“Courts have recognized the strong interest in keeping personal financial records from public
view.” Goodman v. J.P. Morgan Inv. Mgmt., Inc., 301 F. Supp. 3d 759, 784 (S.D. Ohio 2018), aff'd,
954 F.3d 852 (6th Cir. 2020) (collecting cases). Here, Plaintiffs have shown a compelling interest in
shielding from the public their personal financial information contained in Anderson’s report. The
interest in sealing personal financial information outweighs the public’s interest in accessing the
2
Case 4:15-cv-00077-JHM-HBB Document 205 Filed 05/22/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 2960
information. See Wedgewood Ltd. P'ship I v. Twp. of Liberty, Ohio, No. CIV.A. 2:04-CV-1069, 2008
WL 4273084, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 11, 2008) (finding “testimony relating to plaintiff's private
income and financial data is also deserving of protection if not otherwise publicly disclosed”).
Finally, the information Plaintiffs seek to seal is narrowly tailored because they have only redacted
their personal financial information. [DN 174-3]. Because Plaintiffs have overcome their burden,
Anderson’s report may be filed under seal.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Leave to Seal Financial Information [DN 176] and Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Exhibit 2
Under Seal [DN 195] are GRANTED.
May 22, 2020
cc: counsel of record
3
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?