Rome v. Academy Sports & Outdoors, Inc et al

Filing 225

ORDER denying 223 Motion to Seal Record, with the right to be re-urged as instructed herein. Signed by Judge Darrel James Papillion on 08/28/2024. (ko)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KATHLEEN BRISSET ROME

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 22-583

ACADEMY SPORTS & OUTDOORS,
INC., ET AL

SECTION: “P” (3)
ORDER

Before the Court is an “Ex Parte/Consent Motion to Seal Record” filed by Plaintiff
Kathleen Brisset Rome. 1 For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED, with the right
to be re-urged as instructed below.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
The Fifth Circuit has advised that “[t]o decide whether something should be sealed, the
court must undertake a document-by-document, line-by-line balancing of the public’s common
law right of access against the interests favoring nondisclosure.” 2 “[T]he working presumption is
that judicial records should not be sealed. . . . And, to the extent that any sealing is necessary, it
must be congruent to the need.”3 “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.” 4 Thus, while there is a presumption of
public access to judicial records, court have recognized that this access is not absolute. 5

R. Doc. 223.
June Med. Servs., L.L.C. v. Phillips, 22 F.4th 512, 521 (5th Cir. 2022).
3
Id.
4
Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Eni Petroleum US LLC, No. 16-15537, 2017 WL 4226153, at *1 (E.D. La. Sept. 22, 2017)
(quoting 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)).
5
See, e.g., S.E.C. v. Van Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d 845, 848 (5th Cir. 1993) (citing Nixon v. Warner Communications,
Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)); North Cypress Medical Center Operating Co., Ltd. v. Cigna Healthcare, 781 F.3d
182, 203-04 (5th Cir. 2015) (recognizing that a court may seal documents that contain confidential business
information) (citations omitted); Ruby Slipper Cafe, LLC v. Belou, No. 18-1548, 2020 WL 4897905, at *9 (E.D. La.
Jan. 8, 2020) (noting that courts have recognized “parties’ strong interest in keeping their detailed financial
1
2

Plaintiff requests to seal the entire record in this case. She contends the record contains
many sensitive documents regarding her health and other personal information.6 While the Court
agrees that certain documents in the record contain personal information that Plaintiff has an
interest in protecting and that this interest outweighs the public’s interest in such information, the
Court does not find that such information is found on every line of every document in the record.
Thus, the Court does not find that sealing the entire record is appropriate.
Plaintiff is encouraged to consult the Local Civil Rules of this Court and the case law in
this Circuit regarding the sealing of documents before filing any future motions to seal.
CONCLUSION
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Record (R. Doc. 223) is DENIED, with
the right to be re-urged as instructed herein.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 28th day of August 2024.

__________________________________________
DARREL JAMES PAPILLION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

information sealed” because the public has a “relatively minimal interest in [that] particular information”) (citations
omitted); Westside-Marrero Jeep Eagle, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., Inc., No. 97-3012, 1998 WL 186728, at *1 (E.D. La.
Apr. 17, 1998) (maintaining exhibit under seal because the document contained sensitive and proprietary financial
information about individual dealerships that, if unsealed, could cause commercial and competitive harm to such
dealers).
6
R. Doc. 223-1.

2