Nagel v. United Food and Commerical Workers Union, Local 653
Filing
162
ORDER granting 132 152 and 153 Joint Motions Regarding Continued Sealing. Permanent Sealing GRANTED for Document Number(s): 124, 125, 125-1, 125-3, 125-6, 125-7, 125-8, 125-9, 125-10, 125-11, 125-12, 125-14, 125-15, 125-16, 125-17, 125-18, 125-19, 125-20, 125-21, 125-22, 125-23, 125-24, 125-25, 125-28, 125-30, 125-31, 125-32, 125-34, 125-35, 125-36, 125-37, 125-39, 125-40, 135, 137, 137-2 through 137-31, 137-33 through 137-48, 137-50, 137-51, 137-52, 137-53, 140, 140-1, 141, 141-1 thro ugh 141-9, 144, 144-1 through 144-5, 146, 146-1, 146-2, and 148.Document Number(s) to be UNSEALED: 125-2, 125-4, 125-5, 125-13, 125-26, 125-27, 125-29, 125-33, 125-38, 137-1, 137-32, 137-49, 150, 150-1, 150-2, 150-3, 150-4, 150-5, and 150-6. Order on continued sealing becomes final on 11/17/2020 unless further timely submissions are filed.See Order for further instructions.(Written Opinion) Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright on 10/20/2020. (SGK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Matthew Nagel, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated,
Case No. 18-cv-1053 (WMW/ECW)
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
United Food and Commercial Workers
Union, Local 653,
Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motions Regarding Continuing
Sealing (Dkts. 132, 152, and 153) pursuant to Local Rule 5.6(d) concerning documents
filed under seal (Dkts. 124, 125, 125-1 through 125-40, 1 135, 137, 137-1 through 137-53,
140, 140-1, 141, 141-1 through 141-9, 144, 144-1 through 144-5, 146, 146-1, 146-2, 148,
150, and 150-1 through 150-6).
The parties agree that Docket Entries 125-2, 125-4, 125-5, 125-13, 125-26, 12527, 125-29, 125-33, 125-38, 137-49, 150, 150-1, 150-2, 150-3, 150-4, 150-5, and 150-6
should be unsealed.
With respect to Docket Entries 124, 125, 125-1, 125-3, 125-6, 125-7, 125-8, 1259, 125-10, 125-11, 125-12, 125-14, 125-15, 125-16, 125-17, 125-18, 125-19, 125-20,
125-21, 125-22, 125-23, 125-24, 125-25, 125-28, 125-30, 125-31, 125-32, 125-34, 125-
1
The Motion incorrectly identifies Docket Entries 125-6 through 125-40 as 126-6
through 126-40.
35, 125-36, 125-37, 125-39, 125-40, 135, 137, 137-2 through 137-31, 137-33 through
137-48, 137-50, 137-51, 137-52, 137-53, 140, 140-1, 141, 141-1 through 141-9, 144,
144-1 through 144-5, 146, 146-1, 146-2, and 148, the parties agree that the documents
should remain under seal as the documents contain confidential financial information
produced by nonparties, information that this Court has previously concluded (Dkt. 73) is
confidential and sensitive information relating to Defendant’s collective bargaining
strategies and proposal formulation, or personal and confidential information of union
members. Based on these representations, the parties’ agreement, and the Court’s review
of the documents, the Court concludes that the need to maintain the information in these
Docket Entries under seal outweighs the public’s right of access. See D. Minn. LR 5.6(d)
advisory committee’s note; IDT Corp. v. eBay, 709 F.3d 1220, 1224 (8th Cir. 2013).
The parties disagree with respect to the continued sealing of Docket Entries 137-1
and 137-32.
The fact that a document has been designated as confidential under a protective
order alone is not a valid basis to keep the document under seal indefinitely for the
purposes of Local Rule 5.6(d), which governs motions for further consideration of sealing
in this District. See Micks v. Gurstel Law Firm, P.C., No. 17-CV-4659 (ECT/ECW),
2019 WL 220146, at *1 (D. Minn. Jan. 16, 2019). American courts “recognize a general
right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and
documents.” Nixon v. Warner Comms., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); see also Lugosch
v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[D]ocuments used
by parties moving for, or opposing, summary judgment should not remain under seal
2
absent the most compelling reasons.”) (citation omitted); Brown v. Advantage Eng’g,
Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992) (“Once a matter is brought before a court for
resolution, it is no longer solely the parties’ case, but is also the public’s case.”). As the
Eighth Circuit has held:
There is a common-law right of access to judicial records. . . . This right of
access bolsters public confidence in the judicial system by allowing citizens
to evaluate the reasonableness and fairness of judicial proceedings, and “to
keep a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies.” It also provides a
measure of accountability to the public at large, which pays for the courts.
IDT Corp., 709 F.3d at 1222 (citations omitted).
“‘This right of access is not absolute, but requires a weighing of competing
interests.’” Feinwachs v. Minn. Hosp. Ass’n, No. 11-cv-8 (JRT/SER), 2018 WL 882808,
at *3 (D. Minn. Feb. 13, 2018) (quoting Webster Groves Sch. Dist. v. Pulitzer Pub. Co.,
898 F.2d 1371, 1376 (8th Cir. 1990)). According to the Eighth Circuit:
Where the common-law right of access is implicated, the court must consider
the degree to which sealing a judicial record would interfere with the interests
served by the common-law right of access and balance that interference
against the salutary interests served by maintaining confidentiality of the
information sought to be sealed. The decision as to access is one best left to
the sound discretion of the trial court in light of the relevant facts and
circumstances of the particular case.
IDT Corp., 709 F.3d at 1223 (cleaned up); see also Feinwachs, 2018 WL 882808, at *3.
The presumptive right of access is further heightened in class action suits where members
of the public are involved. In re McCormick & Co., Pepper Prod. & Sales Practices
Litig., 316 F. Supp. 3d 455, 462 (D.D.C. 2018).
While Local Rule 5.6 does not explicitly set forth the applicable standard when
determining if a document should remain sealed, the 2017 Advisory Committee Note to
3
Rule 5.6 provides guidance similar to the Eighth Circuit in IDT Corp., supra, by
requiring this Court to balance the interests of Defendant in maintaining the
confidentiality of the documents at issue with the public’s right of access:
[P]arties have been filing too much information under seal in civil cases . . . .
As a general matter, the public does not have a right of access to information
exchanged in discovery; thus, protective orders are often quite broad,
covering entire documents or sets of documents produced during discovery,
even when most or all of the contents are not particularly sensitive. But the
public does have a qualified right of access to information that is filed with
the court. Even if such information is covered by a protective order, that
information should not be kept under seal unless a judge determines that a
party or nonparty’s need for confidentiality outweighs the public’s right of
access.
D. Minn. LR 5.6(d) advisory committee’s note.
In evaluating whether to unseal judicial documents, courts in the District of
Minnesota have utilized the six-factor balancing test outlined in United States v.
Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293, 318 (D.C. Cir. 1980). See Krueger v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., No.
CV 11-2781, 2014 WL 12597948, at *10 (D. Minn. Oct. 14, 2014). These six factors
are:
(1) the need for public access to the documents at issue; (2) the extent of
previous public access to the documents; (3) the fact that someone has
objected to disclosure, and the identity of that person; (4) the strength of any
property and privacy interests asserted; (5) the possibility of prejudice to
those opposing disclosure; and (6) the purposes for which the documents
were introduced during the judicial proceedings.
Id. (citation omitted). The Court looks to see if compelling reasons have been provided
to overcome the presumption that court documents should be public record when
applying the six-factor test. Id.
4
With respect to Docket Entry 137-1, Plaintiff contends that these audio recordings
should be unsealed because they were not designated as confidential under the protective
order, two other membership meeting audio files have been filed publicly, and Defendant
has no expectation of confidentiality of meetings that were open to union members
generally. (Dkt. 153 at 3-4.) Defendant takes the position that the audio recordings of
union membership meetings are confidential for the same reason that other documents
have been filed under seal in this case: because they contain information about
confidential internal union matters, including collective bargaining strategies, organizing
campaigns, internal union governance issues, etc. (Id.)
In light of the fact that these recordings were not designated as confidential under
the Protective Order, the fact that Defendant does not dispute that two other membership
meeting audio files have been filed publicly, the fact that the meeting was open to union
members generally, and the fact that the document was filed in conjunction with a motion
for class certification, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to provide compelling
reasons to overcome the presumption that the recordings should be in the public record.
As such, Docket Entry 137-1 shall be unsealed in accordance with Local Rule 5.6.
As to Docket Entry 137-32, Plaintiff argues that, consistent with the grounds
stated in this Court’s May 6, 2020 Order (Dkt. 108), this document was mailed to all
“pension members” and Defendant has no expectation of confidentiality. Defendant
contends that the document should remain under seal for the same reason that numerous
other documents are filed under seal: because it contains confidential collective
bargaining strategy and proposal formulation information. Defendant does not dispute
5
that this letter was disclosed to pension members. Nothing in this February 2, 2018 letter
to pension members instructs the recipients to not share the letter or the information
contained therein. For these reasons, the Court finds that this letter is not confidential
and shall be unsealed in accordance with Local Rule 5.6.
ORDER
Based upon on the motion and the documents filed under seal, as well as all the
files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Joint
Motions Regarding Continuing Sealing (Dkts. 132, 152, and 153) are GRANTED as follows:
1.
Docket Nos. 125-2, 125-4, 125-5, 125-13, 125-26, 125-27, 125-29, 125-33,
125-38, 137-1, 137-32, 137-49, 150, 150-1, 150-2, 150-3, 150-4, 150-5, and
150-6 will be UNSEALED in accordance with the Local Rules.
2.
Docket Nos. 124, 125, 125-1, 125-3, 125-6, 125-7, 125-8, 125-9, 125-10,
125-11, 125-12, 125-14, 125-15, 125-16, 125-17, 125-18, 125-19, 125-20,
125-21, 125-22, 125-23, 125-24, 125-25, 125-28, 125-30, 125-31, 125-32,
125-34, 125-35, 125-36, 125-37, 125-39, 125-40, 135, 137, 137-2 through
137-31, 137-33 through 137-48, 137-50, 137-51, 137-52, 137-53, 140, 1401, 141, 141-1 through 141-9, 144, 144-1 through 144-5, 146, 146-1, 146-2,
and 148 will remain SEALED.
3.
The parties shall file a joint motion regarding continuing sealing with
respect to the exhibits listed under Docket Entry 126 on or before October
30, 2020.
6
DATED: October 20, 2020
s/Elizabeth Cowan Wright
ELIZABETH COWAN WRIGHT
United States Magistrate Judge
7