Byas v. Cleveland School District et al

Filing 78

ORDER denying 70 Motion to Seal Document. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 10/04/16. (tab)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
DEIDRA BYAS, Individually and
on Behalf of Her Minor Child, J.B.
V.

PLAINTIFF
NO. 4:15-CV-65-DMB-JMV

CLEVELAND SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL
On July 8, 2016, Cleveland School District, Cleveland School Board, and Margaret
Green Junior High School filed a “Motion to Authorize Filing of Documents Under Seal,” joined
by Deidra Byas.1 Doc. #70. The motion seeks to seal five exhibits filed on May 27, 2016, in
support of Defendants’ summary judgment motion, and three exhibits filed on June 20, 2016, in
support of Byas’ opposition. Id.
Rule 79 of the Uniform Local Rules provides that no document may be filed under seal
without a court order. L.U. Civ. R. 79(b). In this regard, Rule 79 instructs that ”[n]o document
may be sealed merely by stipulation of the parties. A confidentiality order or protective order
entered by the court to govern discovery will not qualify as an order to seal documents for
purposes of this rule.” Id. at 79(d).
In addition to these substantive requirements, Rule 79 sets forth the following procedural
requirements for motions to file under seal:
Any motion to seal must be accompanied by a non-confidential supporting
memorandum, a notice that identifies the motion as a sealing motion, and a
proposed order. A party may also submit a confidential memorandum for in
camera review. The non-confidential memorandum and the proposed order must
include:
(A)
1

A non-confidential description of what is to be sealed;

The motion states that it is “joined by Plaintiffs’, by Counsel,” and contains the signature of Deidra Byas’ counsel.

(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)

A statement of why sealing is necessary, and why another
procedure will not suffice;
References to governing case law; and
Unless permanent sealing is sought, a statement of the period of
time the party seeks to have the matter maintained under seal and
how the matter is to be handled upon unsealing.
The proposed order must recite the findings required by governing
case law to support the proposed sealing. Any confidential
memoranda will be treated as sealed pending the outcome of the
ruling on the motion.

Id. at 79(a), (e)(4).
In seeking to seal the exhibits, Defendants rely on a protective order issued by United
States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden regarding discovery in this case, Doc. #51, and the
purpose of FERPA, the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974,2 “to protect the
student’s right to privacy and disclosure of their educational records without their consent.” Doc.
#71 at ¶ 4 (citing Rios v. Read, 73 F.R.D. 589, 587 [sic] (E.D.N.Y. 1977)).
As an initial matter, Rule 79 explicitly states that a protective order governing discovery
will not justify sealing under the rule. L.U. Civ. R. 79(d).
Furthermore, while Rule 79 provides that “[a] statute mandating or permitting the nondisclosure of a class of documents provides sufficient authority to support an order sealing
documents,” Defendants’ motion makes no effort to show how the identified exhibits fall within
a class of documents for which non-disclosure is mandated or permitted under FERPA.
Finally, Defendants failed to submit a proposed order reciting findings required by
governing case law, failed to state in their motion how long the exhibits at issue should be under
seal, and failed to explain why an alternative to sealing cannot suffice. Their motion to seal is
therefore insufficient to justify the relief sought.
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to seal [70] is DENIED.
2

Defendants’ memorandum brief references only “FERPA” with no elaboration about what the acronym means.

2

SO ORDERED, this 4th day of October, 2016.
/s/ Debra M. Brown
.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3