Miller et al v. Target

Filing 91

Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered denying without prejudice 89 Motion for Impoundment of Documents in Support of Summary Judgment Motion at 85 . See attached Order. (MacDonald, Gail)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
KIMBERLY MILLER and BRIAN
MILLER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TARGET CORPORATION,
Defendant.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-10721-IT

ORDER
January 5, 2017
TALWANI, D.J.
Before the court is the Motion of the Defendant Target Corporation for Impoundment of
Documents in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment (Assented-To) [#89]. Defendant
states that impoundment of certain exhibits is appropriate because they constitute proprietary
training materials provided to new employees and have been designated as confidential pursuant
to the parties’ stipulated confidentiality agreement.
The public has a “presumptive” right of access to judicial documents.1 Therefore, the
party seeking to impound materials submitted to the court must make “‘a particular factual
demonstration of potential harm, not . . . conclusory statements’”2 as to why a document should

1

United States v. Kravetz, 706 F.3d 47, 59 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Siedle v. Putnam Invs., Inc.,
147 F.3d 7, 10 (1st Cir. 1998)).
Id. at 60 (quoting Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Standard Fin. Mgmt. Corp., 830 F.2d 404, 412 (1st
Cir. 1987)).
2

be sealed.3 Nothing in the parties’ confidentiality agreement limits the court’s authority to rule
on the necessity of sealing documents filed with the court or lessens the burden to make a
particularized showing of the need for impoundment. Consequently, designation of the
documents as “confidential” pursuant to the parties’ confidentiality agreement is not a sufficient
ground to support impoundment. Similarly, the contention that routine employee documents
contain trade secrets, without more, is insufficient.
In passing on a motion for summary judgment, the court need only review relevant
portions of the documents cited in a party’s Local Rule 56.1 statement of material facts. The
parties may jointly redact documents to avoid disclosure of irrelevant material.
Accordingly:
1. Defendant’s Motion of the Defendant Target Corporation for Impoundment of
Documents in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment (Assented-To) [#89] is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2. Defendant may file, with Plaintiffs’ consent, redacted documents in support of its
summary judgment motion.
3. Alternatively, Defendant may renew its motion to impound showing good cause.
Such a motion should include more substantial argument as to why the relevant
materials should be kept confidential.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: January 5, 2017

3

/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge

See Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 805 F.2d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 1986).
2