Wilburn et al v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives et al

Filing 53

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ADDRESSING WHETHER THE COURT'S FORTHCOMING OPINION AND ORDER SHOULD BE FILED UNDER SEAL. Supplemental briefing due March 13, 2025. Signed by District Judge Susan K. DeClercq. (KBro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JEREMY WILBURN,
Plaintiff,
v.
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO,
FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES et al.,

Case No. 2:23-cv-13170
Honorable Susan K. DeClercq
United States District Judge

Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
ADDRESSING WHETHER THE COURT’S FORTHCOMING OPINION
AND ORDER SHOULD BE FILED UNDER SEAL
The Court is prepared to issue an opinion and order resolving the
Government’s motion to dismiss, ECF Nos. 19; 23 (sealed), and Wilburn’s motion
for preliminary injunction, ECF No. 38. Before doing so, the Court would like the
parties to address whether the forthcoming opinion should be filed under seal. 1 So
far, the parties have differed in their approach to filing under seal: the Government,
mindful that its papers contain information that may be prohibited from disclosure
The Court remains mindful that there is a “strong presumption of openness” as to
court records, Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 305
(6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d
1165, 1180 (6th Cir. 1983)). That is because, at the adjudication stage, “the public is
entitled to assess for itself the merits of judicial decisions, and so “[o]nly the most
compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.” Id. (quoting In re
Knoxville News–Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983)).
1

under Michigan law, has filed its papers under seal. See Mich. Comp. Laws §
780.623(5). On the other hand, Wilburn has filed nothing under seal, even though
his papers refer to that same information.
Therefore, the parties will be directed to file supplemental briefing on the
issue. Each party’s supplemental brief must state the party’s position with respect to
sealing the forthcoming opinion and set forth the legal basis supporting that position.
Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 306 (citing Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1176) (noting
that courts must consider “why the interests in support of nondisclosure are
compelling, why the interests supporting access are less so, and why the seal itself
is no broader than necessary”). If the parties agree one way or another, they may (but
need not) submit a joint supplemental brief rather than two separate briefs. Each
supplemental brief may not exceed 5 pages.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Parties are DIRECTED to file the
above-described supplemental briefing on or before March 13, 2025.
/s/Susan K. DeClercq
SUSAN K. DeCLERCQ
United States District Judge

Dated: March 7, 2025

-2-