Quixtar Incorporated v. Brady et al
Filing
93
ORDER DENYING JOINT (91) (92) MOTION FOR RETURN OF SEALED PLEADINGS AND DOCUMENTS. Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. Associated Cases: 2:08-cv-14346-GER-SDP, 2:08-cv-14347-GER-SDP (RGun)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
QUIXTAR INC.,
Case No. 08-14346
Petitioner,
Hon. Gerald E. Rosen
v.
CHRIS BRADY, et al.,
Respondents.
________________________________________________________________/
QUIXTAR INC.,
Case No. 08-14347
Petitioner,
Hon. Gerald E. Rosen
v.
BILLY FLORENCE, et al.,
Respondents.
________________________________________________________________/
AMWAY GLOBAL,
Case No. 09-12946
Petitioner,
Hon. Gerald E. Rosen
v.
ORRIN WOODWARD, et al.,
Respondents.
________________________________________________________________/
ORRIN WOODWARD, et al.,
Case No. 09-15034
Petitioners,
Hon. Gerald E. Rosen
v.
AMWAY CORP.,
Respondent.
________________________________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTIONS
FOR RETURN OF SEALED PLEADINGS AND DOCUMENTS
At a session of said Court, held in
the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan
on
May 16, 2011
PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen
Chief Judge, United States District Court
In each of the four above-captioned cases, the parties have jointly moved for the
return of any and all sealed pleadings and documents filed with the Court in the course of
these suits. To the extent that these materials were filed electronically, the parties request
that these submissions be purged from the Court’s electronic docket. In support of these
requests, the parties note that each of the above-captioned cases is closed and fully
resolved, and they assert that, under these circumstances, “there is no compelling reason
for the Court to maintain pleadings and other documents submitted under seal.” (Case
No. 08-14346, 12/13/2010 Joint Motion at 1.)
The Court cannot agree. As much as the parties might wish to downplay the
interests of the Court and the public in ensuring that there is a complete and lasting record
2
of the submissions through which the parties sought relief and favorable rulings from the
Court, the law clearly and emphatically recognizes these interests and demands that they
be protected. The Sixth Circuit has emphasized the “strong common law presumption in
favor of public access to court proceedings and records.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission, 710 F.2d 1165, 1179 (6th Cir. 1983). While
“content-based exceptions to the right of access have been developed” to protect such
interests as the “privacy rights of participants or third parties, trade secrets and national
security,” Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1179, a court’s discretionary authority to
issue protective orders and limit public access to litigation materials is “circumscribed by
a long-established legal tradition which values public access to court proceedings,” and
parties may not be permitted to usurp this judicial role and “adjudicate their own case
based upon their own self-interest,” Procter & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust Co., 78 F.3d
219, 227 (6th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
To be sure, the parties here have been afforded considerable latitude in filing
materials under seal, a practice that has encompassed not just a smattering of purportedly
confidential business documents, but nearly all of the motions, briefs, and accompanying
exhibits through which the parties have sought rulings on the merits of their claims and
defenses.1 Yet, even assuming such widespread filing under seal was appropriate, this
1
This Court has previously expressed its disapproval of the broad, seemingly
indiscriminate designation of virtually all materials in a case as “confidential” and subject to
filing under seal. See Rainbow Nails Enterprises, Inc. v. Maybelline, Inc., 93 F. Supp.2d 808,
810 n.1 (E.D. Mich. 2000). Moreover, the Local Rules of this District discourage this practice
by mandating a specific showing of authority before an item may be filed under seal. See Local
3
hardly justifies the much more far-reaching relief sought through the present motions —
i.e., not merely retaining materials under seal after the parties’ disputes have been
resolved and these proceedings have concluded, but altogether excising these sealed
materials from the permanent record through which the parties’ positions and the Court’s
rulings are memorialized. It should come as no surprise that the parties have utterly failed
to identify any authority that would permit the Court to redact its docket in this manner.
Indeed, all authority is to the contrary. In a number of cases, the courts have
recognized a presumption of public access to judicial rulings and all materials filed with
the court that are “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the
judicial process.” S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 231 (2d Cir. 2001) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1075 (7th
Cir. 2009); Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1312
(11th Cir. 2001); Pepsico, Inc. v. Redmond, 46 F.3d 29, 31 (7th Cir. 1995); Flagg v. City
of Detroit, 268 F.R.D. 279, 293 (E.D. Mich. 2010). This common-law right of access has
been characterized as “an essential component of our system of justice” that is
“instrumental in securing the integrity of the process.” Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d at
1311. Here, the parties have not even acknowledged the existence of this presumptive
Rule 5.3(b)(2)(A), Eastern District of Michigan. Indeed, even the parties themselves have
expressed strongly diverging views in the course of these proceedings as to the necessity of
maintaining materials under seal. (See, e.g., Case No. 09-12946, Respondents’ 11/30/2009 Br.
Opposing Petitioner’s Mtn. for Protective Order, at 10 (arguing that while “Amway erroneously
asserts that there is no public interest involved in these records,” there is in fact “always a strong
public interest in maintaining open courts” (emphasis in original)).)
4
right of access, but instead have inappropriately sought to shift the burden to the Court to
identify a “compelling reason” for retaining materials they themselves have placed on the
docket in aid of their efforts to elicit rulings and awards of relief in their favor. Plainly,
then, the parties have failed to establish a basis for overcoming the public right of access
to these materials. Still less, of course, have they established a basis for altogether
erasing these materials from the record. See Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1311
(observing that “heightened scrutiny” is warranted when a court “conceals the record of
an entire case,” and that this additional scrutiny “is necessitated by the fact that entire
civil cases otherwise open to the public are erased as if they never occurred”).
In short, the materials filed in aid of judicial resolution of a dispute voluntarily
brought before the courts can no longer be viewed as the property of the parties to be
disposed of as they see fit. Rather, these materials, upon filing, become a part of the
record of a public institution whose proceedings are conducted almost entirely in the open
and whose rulings are subject to public scrutiny. While the parties to these cases may
have resolved their differences, and thus are no longer in need of judicial assistance, this
does not justify erasing the history of their past requests for the Court’s intervention on
their behalf. Certainly, the parties have not identified any authority that would permit
such a purge of a presumptively public record, and the authorities reviewed by the Court
instead proscribe this course of action.2 Accordingly, for these reasons,
2
Along with the materials they filed on the docket in the above-captioned cases, the
parties also delivered “Judge’s copies” of certain of these materials directly to chambers.
5
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following motions
brought in the above-captioned cases are DENIED:
(i) Case No. 08-14346, December 13, 2010 joint motion for return of sealed
pleadings and documents (docket #92);
(ii) Case No. 08-14347, December 13, 2010 joint motion for return of sealed
pleadings and documents (docket #91);
(iii) Case No. 09-12946, December 3, 2010 joint motion for return of sealed
pleadings and documents (docket #100); and
(iv) Case No. 09-15034, December 3, 2010 joint motion for return of sealed
pleadings and documents (docket #5).
SO ORDERED.
s/Gerald E. Rosen
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: May 16, 2011
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on May 16, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Ruth A. Gunther
Case Manager
Nothing in the present ruling should be construed as prohibiting the parties from reclaiming any
“Judge’s copies” of sealed materials; to the contrary, it is the Court’s usual practice to insist that
parties retrieve these materials from chambers at the conclusion of a case.
6
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?