Mould v. NJG Food Service, Inc. et al

Filing 164

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DIRECTING Defendants file the proposed sealed exhibits re 103 Motion to Seal; GRANTING 122 Motion of Plaintiff to Seal; DIRECTING Defendants to file a motion to seal re 138 sealed documents. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 6/18/14. (hmls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
JEFFREY B. MOULD

*

Plaintiff

*

v.

*

NJG FOOD SERVICE INC., et al.

*

Defendants
*

*

*

CIVIL NO. JKB-13-1305

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This memorandum and order regards Defendants’ January 2, 2014 motion to seal (ECF
No. 103), Plaintiff’s February 12, 2014 motion to seal (ECF No. 122), and Defendants’ filing of
sealed documents without a corresponding motion to seal (ECF No. 138).
I.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL (ECF NO. 103)
Defendants, in their motion (ECF No. 103), seek to seal the following three documents:
a. Exhibit 16 to Defendants’ memorandum in support of Defendants’ motion for
partial summary judgment (ECF No. 104);
b. Exhibit 27 to Defendants’ memorandum in support of Defendants’ motion for
partial summary judgment (ECF No. 104); and
c. Exhibit 28 to Defendants’ memorandum in support of Defendants’ motion for
partial summary judgment (ECF No. 104).
However, Defendants have failed to file these proposed sealed exhibits on the docket.

The Court cannot rule on Defendants’ motion (ECF No. 103) until the proposed sealed exhibits
are filed on the docket. Therefore, Defendants are ORDERED to file the proposed sealed

exhibits on the docket through the CM/ECF system by June 25, 2014. These proposed sealed
documents, once filed, will be kept under seal pending the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ motion.
II.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL (ECF No. 122)
The Court now turns to Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to seal (ECF No. 122). In this

motion, Plaintiff seeks to seal two documents:
a. Exhibit 16 to Plaintiff’s cross motion for partial summary judgment and
opposition to Defendants’ cross motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No.
120); and
b.

Exhibit 19 to Plaintiff’s cross motion for partial summary judgment and
opposition to Defendants’ cross motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No.
120).

These two proposed sealed documents have been filed on the docket. (ECF Nos. 123, 123-1.)
The first document (ECF No. 123) consists of Defendants’ payroll records, and the second
document (ECF No. 123-1) consists of a payroll record regarding Charles Sheubrooks.
In considering Plaintiff’s motion, the Court notes that there is a “presumption of access
accorded to judicial records.” Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir.
1988) (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). In the Fourth Circuit,
“a First Amendment right of access attaches to documents filed in connection with a summary
judgment motion” in civil cases. ACLU v. Holder, 652 F. Supp. 2d 654, 661 (E.D.V.A. 2009)
(citing Rushford, 846 F.2d at 253). However, “there may be instances in which discovery
materials should be kept under seal even after they are made part of a dispositive motion.”
Rushford, 846 F.2d at 253. Under the First Amendment, a “denial of access must be necessitated
by a compelling government interest and narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Id. (citing
multiple cases). The party seeking to prevent access to judicial documents filed in connection
2

with a summary judgment motion has the burden of establishing “that the denial [of access]
serves an important governmental interest and that there is no less restrictive way to serve that
governmental interest.” Id.
In determining whether the materials at issue should be sealed, the Court must follow the
following procedure: (1) give the public adequate notice that the sealing of documents may be
ordered; (2) provide interested persons an opportunity to object to the requests before the Court
makes its decision; (3) if the Court decides to seal documents, it must state its reasons on the
record, supported by specific findings; and (4) state its reasons for rejecting less restrictive
alternatives. Rushford, 846 F.2d at 253-54 (citing In re Knight Publ’g Co., 743 F.2d 231 (4th
Cir. 1984)).
In order to satisfy the first requirement, the Court must “give the public adequate notice
that the . . . sealing of documents may be ordered,” and the motion must be docketed reasonably
in advance of its disposition “so as to give the public and press an opportunity to intervene and
present their objections to the court.” In re Washington Post Co., 807 F.2d 383, 391 (4th Cir.
1986). As required by Local Rule 105.11, the Court has allowed more than fourteen days to
elapse after the motions were entered on the public docket to permit the filing of objections by
interested parties. Therefore, the Court has given the public adequate notice that it may order the
sealing of the documents at issue.
The Court has also satisfied the second requirement. The Court has given the parties time
to submit responses to the various motions. No members of the public or press intervened or
otherwise indicated opposition to the motions, but the Court would have allowed any such
parties to present arguments in opposition.
The Court has also satisfied the third and fourth requirements. It has reviewed Plaintiff’s
submissions and finds that the reasons Plaintiff has advanced for sealing the documents at issue
3

and rejecting less restrictive means of protecting the information therein are sufficient. In
particular, Plaintiff has offered that these documents contain confidential information,
publication of which would harm the privacy interests of third-party employees, Plaintiff, and
Defendants.

See Doe v. Public Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 269 (4th Cir. 2014) (holding that

“protecting the privacy rights of trial participants” is an interest “sufficiently compelling to
justify closure under the First Amendment” and that a corporation’s “strong interest in
preserving the confidentiality of its proprietary and trade-secret information . . . may justify
partial sealing of court records”); (ECF no. 122 ¶¶ 2-3.) Further, sealing these documents is the
least restrictive means of protecting the information contained therein.
Therefore, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to seal (ECF No. 122) is GRANTED.
III.

DOCUMENTS FILED UNDER SEAL WITHOUT A CORRESPONDING
MOTION TO SEAL (ECF NO. 138)

Defendants have filed a number of documents under seal without filing a corresponding
motion to seal. (ECF No. 138). Pursuant to Local Rule 105.11, Defendants must file a motion
requesting permission to file under seal the proposed sealed documents (ECF No. 138).
Defendants SHALL FILE such a motion by June 25, 2014.
IV.

CONCLUSION

In summary, for the reasons stated above, it is ORDERED that:
1. Defendants SHALL FILE the three proposed sealed exhibits that are the subject of their
January 2, 2014 motion to seal (ECF No. 103) on the docket through the CM/ECF system
by June 25, 2014.
2. Plaintiff’s motion to seal (ECF No. 122) is GRANTED.
3. Defendants SHALL FILE a motion seeking permission to file under seal their proposed
sealed documents (ECF No. 138) by June 25, 2014.

4

Dated this 18th day June, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

/s/
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge

5