Piotrowski v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA

Filing 57

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 49 and 56 motions to seal without prejudice to renewal within 14 days. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 3/19/2015. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
ROBERT PIOTROWSKI, et al.
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 11-3758

:
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs

and

Defendant

moved

to

seal

their

respective

memoranda and exhibits in connection with Plaintiffs’ motion to
certify class in their entirety.

(ECF Nos. 49 and 56).

The

motions are insufficient and will be denied without prejudice to
the filing of a properly supported motion.
The Fourth Circuit recently reminded us that:
It is well settled that the public and press
have a qualified right of access to judicial
documents and records filed in civil and
criminal
proceedings.
See
Richmond
Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555,
580 n. 17, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973
(1980);
Nixon v. Warner Communications,
Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55
L.Ed.2d 570 (1978); Media Gen. Operations,
Inc. v. Buchanan, 417 F.3d 424, 428 (4th
Cir. 2005). The right of public access
springs from the First Amendment and the
common-law tradition that court proceedings
are presumptively open to public scrutiny.
Va. Dep't of State Police v. Wash. Post, 386
F.3d
567,
575
(4th
Cir.
2004).
“The
distinction between the rights of access
afforded by the common law and the First
Amendment is significant, because the common
law does not afford as much substantive

protection to the interests of the press and
the public as does the First Amendment.” In
re United States for an Order Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 2703, 707 F.3d 283, 290 (4th
Cir. 2013) (quoting Va. Dep't of State
Police, 386 F.3d at 575) (internal quotation
marks omitted). The common-law presumptive
right of access extends to all judicial
documents and records, and the presumption
can be rebutted only by showing that
“countervailing interests heavily outweigh
the public interests in access.” Rushford,
846 F.2d at 253. By contrast, the First
Amendment secures a right of access “only to
particular judicial records and documents,”
Stone, 855 F.2d at 180, and, when it
applies, access may be restricted only if
closure is “necessitated by a compelling
government interest” and the denial of
access is “narrowly tailored to serve that
interest,” In re Wash. Post Co., 807 F.2d
383, 390 (4th Cir. 1986) (quoting Press–
Enter. Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501,
510, 104 S.Ct. 819, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 (1984)
(internal quotation marks omitted)).
Doe v. Public Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 26566 (4th Cir. 2014).

In

addition, Local Rule 105.11 requires the party seeking sealing
to include “(a) proposed reasons supported by specific factual
representations to justify the sealing and (b) an explanation
why

alternatives

to

sealing

would

not

provide

their

memoranda

sufficient

protection.”
Both
supporting
class

parties

argue

their

positions

contain

that
on

information

Plaintiffs’
which
2

has

and

motion
been

exhibits

to

certify

designated

“Confidential”

pursuant

to

the

parties’

Stipulated

Order

Regarding Confidentiality of Discovery Material granted by this
court, which requires the parties to file any such material
under seal.

(ECF No. 37).

The motions to seal contain only

boilerplate recitations.

The parties have made no attempt to

redact

filings

portions

documents

in

of

their

the

opposed

See

entirety.

as

to

Visual

sealing

Mining,

the

Inc.

v.

Ziegler, No PWG 12-3227, 2014 WL 690905, at *5 (D.Md. Feb. 21,
2014) (denying motion to seal when the only justification was
that

the

documents

are

“confidential”

under

a

court-approved

Protective Order); Under Armour, Inc. v. Body Armor Nutrition,
LLC, No. JKB-12-1283, 2013 WL 5375444, at *9 (D.Md. Aug. 23,
2013)

(denying

provided

only

motions
the

to

barest

seal

where

support

“[t]he

for

the

parties

motions

.

to

.

.

seal,

usually relying on the protective order issued in th[e] case”
and

failed

to

“provide

‘specific

factual

representations’

to

justify their arguments”); Butler v. DirectSAT USA, LLC, 876
F.Supp.2d 560, 576 n.18 (D.Md. 2012) (“In their motion to seal,
Defendants
pursuant

state
to

only

the

that

they

seek

confidentiality

to

order,

seal
an

the

exhibits

explanation

insufficient to satisfy the ‘specific factual representations’
that Local Rule 105.11 requires.”).
3

Accordingly, it is this 19th day of March, 2015, by the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland hereby
ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiffs’ motion to seal memorandum and exhibits in

support of their motion to certify class (ECF No. 49) BE, and
the same hereby IS, DENIED without prejudice to renewal within
14 days;
2.

Defendant’s motion to seal memorandum and exhibits in

support of its opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to certify class
(ECF

No.

56)

BE,

and

the

same

hereby

IS,

DENIED

without

prejudice to renewal within 14 days;
3.

The

clerk

will

transmit

copies

of

the

Memorandum

Opinion and this Order to counsel.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

4