Nieman v. General Motors, Incorporated

Filing 28

ORDER denying plaintiff's Motion to Seal file 27 Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DIANE L. NIEMAN,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:07-cv-12629
vs.
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
GENERAL MOTORS, INC.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL FILE [DOC. # 27]
On May 30, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion to seal file. This filing generally asks the
Court to seal docket #23, the court’s November 17, 2008 order granting summary judgment
to defendant, because it contains what plaintiff describes as sensitive information
concerning the plaintiff’s mental diagnosis by doctors; her medications; and her prognosis.
The time for a response has not expired; nonetheless, plaintiff’s motion to seal file is denied
for the reasons given below.
It is well established that every court has the power over its own records and files;
however, the district court’s power to seal records is subject to the “long-established
tradition” of open access to court documents. Witucki v. Couture, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
23711, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 8, 2002). Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26(c) allows
court papers to be sealed for “good cause.” Tinman v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 176
F.Supp. 2d 743, 745 (E.D. Mich. 2001). In order to meet this burden, courts generally
require that the party moving to seal show that disclosure of the information will result in
some sort of serious competitive or financial harm. Id. See also Walde v. Merck, Sharp,
-1-

& Dohme, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17515, at *4 (E.D. Mich. 1981) (The movant must make
a particularized showing that the information sought is confidential and present specific
examples of competitive harm.). The plaintiff has failed to show with specificity how the
information in docket #23 has harmed her. She makes vague assumptions that her
misfortune came about because fellow employees “googled” her name and circulated the
information contained in docket #23. “Vague and conclusory allegations of . . . harm are
insufficient.” Id. Plaintiff’s motion to seal file and brief in support of motion both fail to show
that her harm was a direct result of the circulation of docket #23.
Moreover, plaintiff does not identify what she desires to be redacted. The plaintiff
vaguely asks the court to seal an entire court document. As mentioned above, there is a
long-standing tradition of open access to court documents. Witucki, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
23711, at *2. In order to overcome this tradition the courts generally require the moving
party to make a specific showing of harm that results from allowing public access to
records. Tinman, 176 F.Supp. 2d at 745. Plaintiff has failed to identify with any specificity
what information she would like sealed.
Finally, plaintiff is trying to seal a file that has been open to the public for six years.
As mentioned above, good cause is generally required in order to seal court papers.
Tinman, 176 F.Supp. 2d at 745. In the case at hand, plaintiff is moving to seal docket #23
because it contains sensitive information that she believes is being misused by users of the
internet. However, the document in this case was not filed under seal, nor were the
preceding iterations of complaints filed by the plaintiff or the summary judgment briefs, all
of which address the same information. The one document in the record plaintiff seeks to
seal has been open to the public since November 17, 2008, and any potential harm from
-2-

public disclosure has already occurred. The medical information discussed in the court’s
summary judgment opinion is integral to its disposition of plaintiff’s disability discrimination
claim. Obviously, if such information were routinely sealed by the courts, case law would
be bereft of guidance for the analysis of such claims. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to
show good cause for sealing the document which has been open to the public for six years.
Witucki, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23711, at *4.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s motion to seal file is DENIED.
Dated: June 11, 2014
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
June 11, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Marcia Beauchemin
Deputy Clerk

-3-