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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?