Reed v. Management Solutions Consulting Group, Inc. et al

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING 8 Motion to Seal. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 1/18/2017. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
ANDREA REED
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 16-2442

INNOVATIVE MANAGEMENT
:
STRATEGISTS, INC. and MANAGEMENT
SOLUTIONS CONSULTING GROUP, INC.:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Presently pending and ready for resolution is an unopposed
motion

to

seal

Strategists,

filed

Inc.

by

(“IMS”)

Defendant

(ECF

No.

Innovative

Management

For

following

8).

the

reasons, the motion to seal will be granted.
In connection with its motions to dismiss or for summary
judgment (ECF Nos. 12; 20), IMS filed a redacted version of its
2014 tax returns to show ownership information relevant to the
parties’

arguments

integrated

over

employer

whether

with

IMS

Defendant

could

be

considered

Management

an

Solutions

Consulting Group, Inc. under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
4, 9).

(ECF No. 8 ¶¶

Upon filing the sealed document, IMS complied with Local

Rule 105.11 and explained to the court that the tax returns
contained confidential financial and ownership information about
IMS,

but

that

this

same

information

was

essential

to

its

integrated employer arguments, meaning no alternative to sealing

would

be

common

sufficient.

law

right

to

Rule

105.11

inspect

and

endeavors

protect

the

judicial

copy

to

records

and

documents, Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597
(1978),

while

recognizing

that

competing

interests

sometimes

outweigh the public’s right of access, In re Knight Publ’g Co.,
743 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 1984).
the

court

granted

IMS’s

motion

In its Memorandum Opinion,
to

dismiss

with

regard

to

Plaintiff’s Title VII claim without referencing the materials
IMS moves to seal or addressing the integrated employer issue
for which IMS introduced them.
the

tax

return

information

(See ECF No. 36).

had

no

bearing

on

Given that
the

court’s

decision, the public’s interest in the information is outweighed
by

IMS’s

interest

information.

in

protecting

its

confidential

financial

See Randolph v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., No. DKC-09-

1790, 2012 WL 2234362, at *11 (D.Md. June 14, 2012) (holding
that confidentiality was warranted for tax returns and granting
a consent motion to seal); TransPacific Tire & Wheel, Inc. v.
Orteck Int’l, Inc., No. DKC-06–0187, 2010 WL 2774445, at *3
(D.Md. July 13, 2010) (finding that tax returns may contain
confidential

information

and

granting

an

unopposed

motion

to

seal), aff’d on other grounds, 457 F.App’x 256 (4th Cir. 2011)
(unpublished opinion).

2

For the foregoing reasons, it is this 18th day of January,
2017, by the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, ORDERED that:
1.

The

motion

to

seal

filed

by

Defendant

Innovative

Management Strategists, Inc. (ECF No. 8) BE, and the same hereby
IS, GRANTED; and
2.

The

clerk

will

transmit

copies

of

the

Memorandum

Opinion and Order to counsel for the parties.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

3