Altier v. Worley Catastrophe Response, LLC et al

Filing 251

ORDERED that no further motions for sealing will be granted unless accompanied by the criteria stated herein. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr.(Reference: 11-241, 11-242)(car, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOHN J. ALTIER

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 11-241 c/w 11-242

WORLEY CATASTROPHE
RESPONSE, LLC ET AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JOSEPH C. WILKINSON, JR.
ORDER

It appears that the parties are abusing the sealing procedures of their agreed
protective order. As I have previously stated in this case, the court is a public forum. Its
record is presumptively a public record, open to view by all, and requests to seal the
court’s record are not lightly granted or considered.
To determine whether to disclose or seal a judicial record, the Court
must balance the public’s common law right of access against the interests
favoring non-disclosure. Courts recognize a common law right to access
judicial records and proceedings, but the right is not absolute. Public
access serves to enhance the transparency and trustworthiness of the
judicial process, to curb judicial abuses, and to allow the public to
understand the judicial system better. It follows then that the district
court’s discretion to seal the record of judicial proceedings is to be
exercised charily. Although countervailing interests can outweigh the right
of public access, the party seeking to overcome the presumption of access
bears the burden to show that the interest in secrecy outweighs the
presumption. The decision as to access is left to the discretion of the trial
court, but any doubt must be construed in favor of disclosure.
Liljeberg Enters. Int’l, LLC v. Vista Hosp. of Baton Rouge, Inc., No. 04-2780, 2005 WL
1309158, at *1 (E.D. La. May 19, 2005) (Vance, J.) (quotations omitted) (emphasis
added) (citations omitted).
The First Amendment presumes that there is a right of access to
proceedings and documents which have historically been open to the public

and where the disclosure of which would serve a significant role in the
functioning of the process in question. This presumption is rebuttable upon
demonstration that suppression “is essential to preserve higher values and
is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.”
Grove Fresh Distribs., 24 F.3d at 897 (quoting Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Ct., 464 U.S.
501, 510 (1984)) (additional quotation omitted) (emphasis added). As the Fifth Circuit
has stated in another context, sealing items in the court’s public record must be avoided
where it “protects no legitimate privacy interest that would overcome the public’s right
to be informed.” In re: High Sulfur Content Gasoline Prods. Liab. Litig., 517 F.3d 220,
230 (5th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that no further motions for sealing will be granted
unless accompanied by (1) a certificate of counsel, stating that counsel for both parties
have jointly reviewed the materials and agreed that the materials should be sealed in the
record for reasons specifically cited in the certification of counsel justifying sealing, or
(2) accompanied by evidence submitted by whichever party seeks to have the materials
sealed, sufficient to establish the criteria necessary for sealing, as set forth in Local Rule
5.6 and under the applicable substantive law.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this

5th

day of October, 2011.

JOSEPH C. WILKINSON, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE