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)

Download PDF
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?