Jacques v. Haas Group International, LLC

Filing 63

ORDER denying 57 Motion to File Under Seal Exhibits to Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn S Ostby on 1/12/2016. (cp) (NOB) Modified on 1/12/2016 to add link. (NOB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BILLINGS DIVISION
THOMAS P. JACQUES,

CV-14-135-BLG-SPW-CSO

Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
HAAS GROUP
INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant.

On December 18, 2015, Plaintiff Thomas P. Jacques (“Jacques”)
filed an unopposed “Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Exhibits to
Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment” (ECF No. 57).
As a basis for the motion, Jacques stated that the documents were
marked as confidential pursuant to a protective order and that
“[r]edaction is not feasible because Plaintiff’s counsel does not know
why Defendant marked the exhibits confidential.” Id. at 1.
On December 24, 2015, the Court issued an Order affording the
parties an opportunity, until January 6, 2016, to make the required
showing to support sealing of the documents in question. Order (ECF
No. 59). The Court noted:

There is a strong presumption in favor of access to documents
filed in a civil case. The Ninth Circuit recently explained:
Historically, courts have “recognize[d] a general right to inspect
and copy public records and documents, including judicial records
and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,
597, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978) (footnote omitted). “The
English common law, the American constitutional system, and the
concept of the consent of the governed stress the public nature of
legal principles and decisions. Throughout our history, the open
courtroom has been a fundamental feature of the American
judicial system. Basic principles have emerged to guide judicial
discretion respecting public access to judicial proceedings. These
principles apply as well to the determination of whether to permit
access to information contained in court documents because court
records often provide important, sometimes the only, bases or
explanations for a court's decision.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1177 (6th Cir.1983) (internal
quotation marks and footnote omitted). Accordingly, “[u]nless a
particular court record is one traditionally kept secret, a strong
presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana,
447 F.3d at 1178 (internal quotation marks omitted). In keeping
with the strong public policy favoring access to court records,
most judicial records may be sealed only if the court finds
“compelling reasons.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665,
677–78 (9th Cir.2010) (amended opinion) (internal quotation
marks omitted); see also Perez–Guerrero v. U.S. Att'y. Gen., 717
F.3d 1224, 1235 (11th Cir.2013).
Id. at 1-2 (citing Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1025-26 (9th Cir.
2014)).
Here, neither party filed a brief demonstrating the compelling
reasons necessary to justify an order to seal the subject documents.
The time for doing so has passed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that
2

Jacques’ Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Exhibits to Response to
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 57) is DENIED.
DATED this 12th day of January, 2016.

/s/ Carolyn S. Ostby
United States Magistrate Judge

3