Lee #791018 v. Tinerella et al

Filing 62

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 54 denying Motion to Seal; proposed order 55 is stricken; proposed sealed document 57 is unsealed; signed by Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Green (Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Green, jkw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______________________

GREGORY LEE, # 791018,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ROBERT TINERELLA, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Case No. 1:17-cv-797
Honorable Robert J. Jonker

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL A SUMMARY JUDGMENT EXHIBIT
This is a civil rights action brought pro se by a state prisoner pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint arises out of conditions of his confinement at the
Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility. The defendants are Corrections Officers Robert
Tinerella, Dustin Rose, Bruce Spitzley, and Marty Piggott. Plaintiff claims that
defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights.

He alleges that, on

March 12, 2016, Officer Tinerella used excessive force and that Officers Rose and
Spitzley failed to intervene. He alleges that, on April 19, 2016, Officer Piggott used
excessive force and that Officer Rose failed to intervene.1
This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motion to seal an exhibit that
they filed in support of their motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 54). For the
reasons set forth herein, defendants’ motion to seal will be denied.

1

All other claims have been dismissed. (ECF No. 4, 5, 29).

The controlling Sixth Circuit authority on the issue of sealing summary
judgment exhibits is Shane Group, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825
F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2016). In Shane Group, Inc., the Sixth Circuit emphasized that
there is a “stark difference” between the “compelling reasons” standard applicable to
requests to seal court records at an “adjudication stage” and the much lower “good
cause” standard for a protective order during discovery under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 26. 825 F.3d at 305; see also Signature Mgmt. Team, LLC v. Doe, 876 F.3d
831, 836 (6th Cir. 2017) (“Although a district court may enter a protective order
during discovery upon a showing of ‘good cause,’ FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c)(1), there is a
stark difference between so-called protective orders and orders to seal court records.”)
(citation and quotation omitted); Beauchamp v. Federal Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 658
F. App’x 202, 207-08 (6th Cir. 2016) (holding that it was error for the district court to
allow parties to seal summary judgment exhibits without first requiring them to
demonstrate compelling reasons to seal the exhibits and that the non-disclosure was
narrowly tailored to serve those reasons). “Very different considerations apply” at
the adjudication stage and the line “is crossed when the parties place material in the
court record.” Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 305.
Judicial records are presumptively open to public inspection.

This

presumption “fosters confidence in the judicial system by assuring that courts are
operating fairly and in a transparent fashion and that disputes presented to the
courts are open to public scrutiny.” Martis v. Dish Network, No. 1:13-cv-1106, 2013
WL 6002208, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 12, 2013) (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns,

-2-

Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) and Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710
F.2d 1165, 1177-79 (6th Cir. 1983)). This presumption has roots both in the First
Amendment and the common law, and it applies to pleadings, motions, and other
documents that bear on the merits of a controversy. Martis, 2013 WL 6002208, at *1.
“The Sixth Circuit has pointed out that the presumption of access to court proceedings
finds its genesis in the founding principles of this country and a revulsion against
secret judicial proceedings, such as those held in the Star Chamber and other
prerogative courts.” Id. at *2 (citing Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1177 n. 6).
Defendants bear the heavy burden of overcoming the strong presumption in
favor of public access to their summary judgment exhibits:

“ ‘Only the most

compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.’ ” Shane Grp., Inc.,
825 F.3d at 305 (quoting In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th
Cir. 1983)). “The proponent of sealing therefore must ‘analyze in detail, document by
document, the propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.’ ” Shane
Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 305 (quoting Baxter Int’l., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 297 F.3d
544, 548 (6th Cir. 2002)).
Brief and perfunctory reasons are “patently inadequate.” Shane Grp., Inc., 825
F.3d at 306. “[A] district court that chooses to seal court records must set forth
specific findings and conclusions which justify nondisclosure to the public.”

Id.

(citation and quotation omitted); see Signature Mgmt. Team, LLC, 876 F.3d at 836.
“[A] court’s obligation to explain the basis for sealing court records is independent of
whether anyone objects to it.” Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 306. A district court’s

-3-

failure to set forth the specific reasons “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” constitute “grounds to vacate an order to seal.” Id.
The Local Civil Rules require that all motions, except those made orally during
a hearing or at trial, be accompanied by a supporting brief. See W.D. MICH. LCIVR
7.1(a). Defendants did not file a brief in support of their motion.
Defendants ask that the exhibit “be filed under seal because it contains copies
of [p]laintiff’s medical records.” (ECF No. 54, PageID.470). Defendants’ perfunctory
statement is patently inadequate to carry their heavy burden of overcoming the
strong presumption in favor of public access to summary judgment exhibits. See
Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 306.
“Given the public’s constitutionally-based right to know the evidence on which
this Court bases a decision on a motion for summary judgment, motions to seal
summary judgment exhibits, including medical records, are regularly denied by this
Court.” Kitchen v. Corizon Health Inc., No. 1:16-cv-1068, 2017 WL 5099892, at *3
(W.D. Mich. Nov. 5, 2017) (collecting cases). Defendants have not established a legal
or factual basis for sealing any exhibit. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motion to seal (ECF No. 54) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ proposed order to seal (ECF
No. 55) is stricken.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the proposed sealed exhibit (ECF No. 57)
is unsealed.

-4-

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 29, 2019

/s/ Phillip J. Green
PHILLIP J. GREEN
United States Magistrate Judge

-5-