Tann v. Ludwikoski et al

Filing 66

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 11/11/11. (c/m 11/15/11 bmh, Deputy Clerk)

FILED
~R!~ttTh~~;rrlf:S
UI;)p~ftTHE

DISTRICT COURT

uIstRr~fOF MARYLAND

, ZOlI NOV I Lt A II: I
MICHAEL EUGENE T~RK'S
OFFiCE
"T B r\!L-rI'<!I~~~
II
Plaintiff,
f\
nJr,t

8~l ,_

,

'UT\!

!'".•

Civil Action No.: ELH-10- 00612

v.
DAVID LUDWIKOSKI, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

A.
On October 17, 2011, plaintiff Michael Tann, pro se, filed "Plaintiffs

Motion For

Summary Judgment And Opposition To Defendants [sic] Summary Judgment Motion" ("First SJ
Motion," ECF 58). On October 19,2011, plaintiff filed a "Motion To Offer A More Definitive
Statement Concerning Defendants [sic] Motion For Extension Of Time To File A Reply To
Plaintiffs'

[sic] Opposition to Defendant's

[sic] Summary Judgment Motion / Plaintiffs'

[sic]

Motion For Summary Judgment; And Plaintiffs' [sic] Motion For A Short Extension Of Time To
Amend His Opposition
Judgment"

(ECF 62).

Memorandum,"

To Defendant's

[sic] Summary Judgment / Motion For Summary

In a Memorandum

dated October

ECF 63), I granted plaintiffs

November 2,2011.

24, 2011 (the "October

24

request for time to amend, until Wednesday,

According to CM/ECF, however, ECF 62 remains pending. Therefore, ECF 62

is now denied as moot.

B.
On November 4,2011, plaintiff filed "Plaintiffs
Judgment And Opposition To Defendants

Amended Cross Motion For Summary

[sic] Summary Judgment Motion" ("Amended

SJ

Motion," ECF 64). As plaintiff is pro se and defendants have not moved to strike the submission

as untimely, I will accept the tardy filing. In any event, it is substantially identical to plaintiffs
first submission (ECF 58). Therefore, because it has been superseded by ECF 64, I shall deny
ECF 58 as moot.

c.
Plaintiff filed a "Motion To Seal Summary Judgment Documents" (ECF 61) with respect
to four documents, discussed

infra. I denied that motion in my October 24 Memorandum (ECF

63), because the motion did not comport with Local Rule 105(11); it failed to include "proposed
reasons supported by specific factual representations to justify the sealing" or "an explanation
why alternatives
Memorandum,

to sealing would not provide sufficient protection."!

In the October 24

I advised plaintiff that he would be given an opportunity

to withdraw the

documents, and that he could, alternatively, file another motion to seal that complies with the
requirements of the Local Rules.
Accordingly,
Documents"

plaintiff has filed an "Amended

Motion To Seal Summary Judgment

("Amended Motion to Seal," ECF 65).2

The motion pertains to four exhibits.

"Exhibit 1" is a copy of a February 8, 2007 email exchange between defendant Ludwikoski and
plaintiffs

classmate, Elizabeth Huh.

"Exhibit 2" is titled "General Affidavit" and consists of

two statements, one from plaintiff and the other from his classmate, Tina Morris. "Exhibit 3" is
an excerpt from defendant Ludwikoski's Answers to Interrogatories.

"Exhibit 4" is a copy of a

! Local Rule 105(11) states: "Any motion seeking the sealing of pleadings, motions,
.exhibits or other documents to be filed in the Court record shall include (a) proposed reasons
supported by specific factual representations to justify the sealing and (b) an explanation why
alternatives to sealing would not provide sufficient protection."
2 Plaintiff did not append the four exhibits to his Amended SJ Motion.
However, he
clearly intended to incorporate by reference the four exhibits appended to the First SJ Motion.
Accordingly, in considering plaintiffs Amended SJ Motion and the Amended Motion to Seal, I
consider the exhibits appended to the First SJ Motion.

2

May 3, 2007 email exchange between defendant Ludwikoski and plaintiff's

classmate, Sarah

Pijanowski.
Plaintiff

asks to seal the four exhibits pursuant

to "the stipulated

confidentiality

agreement agreed upon by Plaintiff and Defendants' and docketed by the court on April 8, 2011,"
and because "[n]o other alternative to sealing is adequate as the information in the documents
reveals private student information that is part of their academic file [sic]." Plaintiff also argues
that "redaction of the documents will be ineffective in shielding the contents of the documents
unless the whole document(s) is redacted."
On April 8, 2011, I signed a Stipulated Order (ECF 41), which stated that "all documents
produced in the course of discovery, all Answers to Interrogatories, all Answers to Requests for
Admission, all Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, and all deposition testimony
and deposition

exhibits" would be designated,

in the first instance, as confidential.

designation of confidentiality is subject to challenge, however.

The

Defendants have not challenged

plaintiff's confidentiality designation ofthe exhibits. Accordingly, with respect to Exhibits 1, 3,
and 4, plaintiff's Amended Motion to Seal (ECF 65) will be granted. Exhibit 2, however, does
not appear to be within the scope of the Stipulated Order regarding confidentiality.
"There is a well-established
documents."

common law right to inspect and copy judicial records and

Kianpour v. Restaurant Zone, Inc., No. DKC-11-0802, 2011 WL 3880463, at *1

(D. Md. Aug. 30,2011).

"If competing interests outweigh the public's right of access, however,

the court may, in its discretion, seal those documents from the public's view." Id. The substance
of the Affidavits is that Jennifer McBride, a Caucasian classmate of plaintiff and Ms. Morris,
came to the door of defendant Ludwikoski's
through the semester.

class on the first day, left, and returned mid-way

Neither plaintiff nor Ms. Morris recalls being informed by Ludwikoski

3

that there was a limit to the number of extra credit assignments students could tum in. In her
Affidavit, Ms. Morris also states that she does not recall being informed that students would be
permitted to enter Ludwikoski's

class if they arrived late on exam days.

She also relates a

personal experience of being turned away when she arrived late to class on a day when an exam
was not being held.
In my view, the General Affidavit does not demonstrably

contain "private student

information that is part of their academic file [sic]." Therefore, I will deny plaintiff s motion to
seal as to Exhibit 2.
A separate Order consistent with this Memorandum follows.

Date:

IIIIIIII

lsi
Ellen Lipton Hollander
United States District Judge

4