First Mariner Bank v. The Resolution Law Group, P.C.

Filing 235

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 214 Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K. Gauvey on 2/21/14 (cags, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
FIRST MARINER BANK

*

Plaintiff
vs.

*
*

THE RESOLUTION LAW GROUP, P.C., *
et al.
*
Defendants
*
*
*
*
*

CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-12-1133

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Seal (i)
Opposition to Motion for Entry of Civil Contempt Order, and (ii)
Affidavit in Support (ECF No. 214) and Plaintiff's Response in
Opposition to Motion to Seal (ECF No. 223) to which Defendants filed
no reply.

The Court finds a hearing unnecessary.

Local Rule 105.6

(D. Md. 2011).
Defendants seek sealing of the opposition and affidavit, in
their entirety. However, there is a common-law right of public access
to judicial records.
597 (1978).

Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,

"Under common law, there is a presumption of access to

judicial records," so a party seeking to seal records must rebut that
presumption by demonstrating that the "countervailing interests
heavily outweigh the public interests in access."

Rushford v. New

Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 246, 253 (4th Cir. 1988).

Here,

Defendants have presented bare assertions, without reference to
legal authority, that the documents in question contain "very
personal and confidential” information, including information

relating to assets owned jointly by the individual Defendant and his
wife and that there is a concern about "'identity theft.'" (ECF No.
214 at 1-2).

However, a party must “offer reasons supported by

specific factual representations justifying the sealing.”

Minter

v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 258 F.R.D. 118, 121 (D. Md. 2009); Local
Rule 105.11 (D. Md.).

The defendants have not done so.

The Court, having reviewed the documents in question, finds no
basis for the sealing of the documents.

The documents provide

general information; they do not include any personal identifiers
or any account numbers, or other similarly sensitive information.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

Date: 2/21/14

/s/
Susan K. Gauvey
United States Magistrate Judge

2