TFFI Corp. v. Williams et al

Filing 100

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 99 Motion to Seal Case (c/m to counsel 7/11/16 sat). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 7/11/2016. (sats, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
TFFI CORP. D/B/A TOP FUNDING,
INC.

:

v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 13-1809

:
WILBERT WILLIAMS, ET AL.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This action commenced on June 20, 2013 and closed on May
24, 2016 following a settlement.

On June 9, 2016, Defendant

Wilbert Williams (“Defendant”) filed a motion requesting that
the court temporarily seal the record for one year.
99).

(ECF No.

Defendant contends that “[t]hose counts of the [c]omplaint

alleging fraud in this case have rendered it nearly impossible
for [Defendant] to obtain employment.”

(Id. at 2).

According

to Defendant, Plaintiff’s counsel consents to the request to
seal temporarily.

(Id.).

There is a well-established common law right to inspect and
copy

judicial

records

and

documents.

See

Nixon

Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978).

v.

Warner

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.
court

must

Before ordering that any document be sealed, the

undertake

certain

procedures

to

assure

that

all

relevant interests are considered.

The relevant standard in

this district is set forth by Local Rule 105.11, which provides:
Any motion seeking the sealing of pleadings,
motions, exhibits or other papers 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 protections.
The Court will not
rule upon the motion until at least 14 days
after it is entered on the public docket to
permit
the
filing
of
objections
by
interested parties.
Materials that are the
subject
of
the
motion
shall
remain
temporarily sealed pending a ruling by the
Court. If the motion is denied, the party
making
the
filing
will
be
given
an
opportunity to withdraw the materials.
Defendant’s

motion

to

seal

contains

no

specific

factual

representations that would justify sealing, or an explanation as
to

why

alternatives

protections.

to

Indeed,

sealing

none

of

would
the

not

provide

original

sufficient

proceedings

were

filed under seal and this action has been a matter of public
record for more than three years.

While Defendant generally

alleges

to

that

sealing

is

necessary

allow

him

to

obtain

employment, he does not state why more limited redactions or the
sealing of select documents would not be as effective and more
appropriate than sealing the entire record.

Further, sealing

this action would not remove any information that is already
publicly available and has been for the past three years.

2

Accordingly, it is this 11th
United

States

District

Court

for

day of July, 2016, by the
the

District

of

Maryland,

ORDERED that:
1.

Defendant’s motion to seal the proceedings temporarily

(ECF No. 99) BE, and the same hereby IS, DENIED;
2.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this

Order to counsel for the parties.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

3