George, M.D. v. Rabei Bdeir, M.D.

Filing 14

OPINION and ORDER Granting Parties' 13 Joint Motion to Seal File and Dismissing Case with Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SARAH GEORGE, M.D.,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
v.

Civil Case No. 16-12749
Honorable Linda V. Parker

RABEI BDEIR, M.D.,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
__________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ JOINT MOTION TO
SEAL FILE AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE
This is a dispute between two co-workers. With the aid of a private
facilitator, they entered into a private and confidential settlement agreement. They
now ask the Court to seal the entire case file to avoid prejudice from the allegations
they made against each other in their pleadings.
Judicial records are presumptively open to the public. See Nixon v. Warner
Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). The Supreme Court identified several
policy considerations public access fosters, as summarized by the Sixth Circuit in
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1178-79 (6th Cir.
1983). “First, public trials play an important role as outlets for ‘community
concern, hostility, and emotions.’ ” Id. at 1178 (quoting Richmond Newspapers,
Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 571 (1980)). “When judicial decisions are known to

be just and when the legal system is moving to vindicate societal wrongs, members
of the community are less likely to act as self-appointed law enforcers or
vigilantes.” Id.
“Second, public access provides a check on the courts.” Id. “Judges know
that they will continue to be held responsibly by the public for their rulings.” Id.
Moreover, open access enables the public to analyze and critique court decisions.
Id. “[P]ublic access provides an element of accountability.” Id.
Finally, open access to judicial proceedings “promote[s] ‘true and accurate
fact finding.’ ” Id. (quoting Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 596). A case’s
publicity may lead to previously unidentified witnesses coming forward with
evidence. Id. Further, “witnesses in an open trial may be less inclined to perjure
themselves. Public access creates a critical audience and hence encourages truthful
exposition of facts, an essential function of a trial.” id.
The presumption of public access is not absolute, however. Nixon, 435 U.S.
at 598. “Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and
access has been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper
purposes.” Id. For example, courts have exercised their discretionary power to
seal court records “to insure that [those] records are not ‘using to gratify private
spite or promote public scandal’ through the publication of ‘the painful and
sometimes disgusting details of a divorce case.’ ” Id. (quoting In re Caswell, 18
2

R.I. 835, 836, 29 A. 259 (1893)). Access to court documents also has been limited
to avoid those files “serv[ing] as reservoirs of libelous statements for press
consumption … or as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s
competitive standing[.]” Id. (citations omitted). Courts are “afforded the power to
seal their records when interests of privacy outweigh the public’s right to know.”
In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470, 474 (6th Cir. 1983) (citing
Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1189; In re Kalkin, 598 F.2d 176, 190-92 (D.C.
Cir. 1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 362
N.E.2d 1189 (1977)).
In light of the parties’ settlement, neither the Court nor a jury will ever
assess the accusations in the parties’ pleadings for their truthfulness. As such, the
Court sees no benefit in the public learning of them. Moreover, under the
circumstances of this case (e.g., an early settlement before the Court made any
decisions), leaving the record open to the public will not advance any of the policy
considerations generally fostered by the presumption of public access. To the
extent the public has any interest in accessing what the parties alleged in their
pleadings, it is outweighed by the parties’ interests in having such unchallenged
charges remain confidential.
Accordingly,

3

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to Seal File (ECF No. 13) is
GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the record in this matter will be sealed,
except for text-only entries, the parties’ motion, and this Opinion and Order;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE, without costs or fees to any party, and the matter is CLOSED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 16, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, November 16, 2016, by electronic and/or
U.S. First Class mail.
s/ Richard Loury
Case Manager

4