Barlia v. MWI Veterinary Supply, Inc.
Filing
55
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Request to Seal Her Case 53 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JULIE BARLIA,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 15-10243
v.
HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD
MWI VETERINARY SUPPLY, INC.,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO SEAL HER CASE
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Julia Barlia’s request to seal her
case, civil action case no. 15-10243, Barlia v. MWI Veterinary Supply, Inc., previously
assigned to now retired District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. Barlia claims that she has
been unable to find employment and that by sealing her entire case, she will be able
to find employment. MWI filed a response.
Barlia filed a Complaint against her then-employer MWI, on January 21, 2015,
alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §
12100 et seq. (ECF No. 1) On January 24, 2017, an Opinion and Order was entered
granting MWI’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing Barlia’s Complaint.
(ECF No. 45) The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s
judgment. (ECF No. 51) The mandate was issued on January 31, 2018. (ECF No. 52)
Barlia does not cite any legal authority for sealing her entire case. The Sixth
Circuit set forth standards governing sealing Court records. In Shane Group, Inc. v.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit
explained,
By way of background, there is a stark difference
between so-called “protective orders” entered pursuant to
the discovery provisions of Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 26, on the one hand, and orders to seal court
records, on the other. Discovery concerns the parties’
exchange of information that might or might not be relevant
to their case. “Secrecy is fine at the discovery stage, before
the material enters the judicial record.” Baxter Int'l, Inc. v.
Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002). Thus, a
district court may enter a protective order limiting the use
or disclosure of discovery materials upon a mere showing
of “good cause[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). These orders
are often blanket in nature, and allow the parties to
determine in the first instance whether particular materials
fall within the order's protection. The district court entered
several such orders here.
“At the adjudication stage, however, very different
considerations apply.” Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880, 893 (2d
Cir. 1982). The line between these two stages, discovery
and adjudicative, is crossed when the parties place material
in the court record. Baxter, 297 F.3d at 545. Unlike
information merely exchanged between the parties, “[t]he
public has a strong interest in obtaining the information
contained in the court record.” Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1180 (6th Cir.
1983). That interest rests on several grounds. Sometimes,
the public's interest is focused primarily upon the
litigation's result—whether a right does or does not exist, or
2
a statute is or is not constitutional. In other
cases—including “antitrust” cases, id. at 1179—the public's
interest is focused not only on the result, but also on the
conduct giving rise to the case. In those cases, “secrecy
insulates the participants, masking impropriety, obscuring
incompetence, and concealing corruption.” Id. And in any
of these cases, the public is entitled to assess for itself the
merits of judicial decisions. Thus, “[t]he public has an
interest in ascertaining what evidence and records the
District Court and this Court have relied upon in reaching
our decisions.” Id. at 1181; see also, e.g., Baxter, 297 F.3d
at 546.
The courts have long recognized, therefore a “strong
presumption in favor of openness” as to court records.
Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1179. The burden of
overcoming that presumption is borne by the party that
seeks to seal them. In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 194
(3d Cir. 2001). The burden is a heavy one: “Only the most
compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial
records.” In re Knoxville News–Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470,
476 (6th Cir. 1983). Moreover, the greater the public
interest in the litigation's subject matter, the greater the
showing necessary to overcome the presumption of access.
See Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1179. For example,
in class actions—where by definition “some members of
the public are also parties to the [case]”—the standards for
denying public access to the record “should be applied ...
with particular strictness.” Cendant, 260 F.3d at 194. And
even where a party can show a compelling reason why
certain documents or portions thereof should be sealed, the
seal itself must be narrowly tailored to serve that reason.
See, e.g., Press–Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of California,
Riverside Cnty., 464 U.S. 501, 509-11, 104 S.Ct. 819, 78
L.Ed.2d 629 (1984). The proponent of sealing therefore
must “analyze in detail, document by document, the
propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.”
3
Baxter, 297 F.3d at 548.
Shane Group, 825 F.3d at 305–06.
In her request, Barlia, as the proponent of sealing the Court’s records, has not
set forth “in detail, document by document, the propriety of secrecy, providing
reasons and legal citations,” to support her request to seal her entire case. The public
is entitled to assess the merits of the judicial decisions made in any case. Barlia’s case
has been fully adjudicated. As noted above, there is a “strong presumption” in favor
of openness to court records. Barlia has not overcome the strong presumption to keep
her case open to the public.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Julie Barlia’s Rquest to Seal her Case (ECF No.
53) is DENIED.
S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: July 27, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on July 27, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager
4
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?