Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 125

ORDER denying 119 Motion to File Under Seal Signed by Jeremiah C. Lynch on 10/20/2011. (TCL, ) Modified on 10/20/2011 to reflect copy mailed to Spreadbury (APP, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
_____________________________________________
MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY,

CV 11-64-M-DWM-JCL

Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY,
CITY OF HAMILTON,
LEE ENTERPRISES, INC.,
BOONE KARLBERG, P.C.,
DR. ROBERT BROPHY, TRISTA SMITH,
NANSU RODDY, JERRY STEELE,
STEVE SNAVELY, STEVEN BRUNER-MURPHY,
RYAN OSTER, KENNETH S. BELL, and JENNIFER LINT,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________
Defendants Bitterroot Public Library, Dr. Robert Brophy, Trista Smith,
Nansu Roddy, City of Hamilton, Jerry Steele, Steve Snavely, Steven BrunerMurphy, Ryan Oster, Kenneth Bell and Jennifer Lint move for leave to file under
seal their statement of undisputed facts that they intend to file in support of their
forthcoming motion for summary judgment. Defendants state that their proposed
statement of undisputed facts will refer to various police reports that they intend to
file in support of their summary judgment motion. They argue that the police

1

reports are protected as confidential criminal justice information under the
Montana Criminal Justice Information Act of 1979, Mont. Code Ann. § 44-5-101
et seq., and must be filed under seal.
There exists a long-recognized interest of citizens and “general right to
inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and
documents.” Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th
Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 &
n.7 (1978)). This right gives rise to a “strong presumption in favor of access” to
judicial records. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (citation and quotation omitted).
Thus, where a party seeks to seal a judicial record and specific documents attached
to a dispositive motion — such as one for summary judgment — then that party
bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of access by showing that
“compelling reasons” exist for filing documents under seal. Kamakana, 447 F.3d
at 1178, 1180. See also Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Assn. 605 F.3d 665, 678-79
(9th Cir. 2010). The party must “articulate[ ] compelling reasons supported by
specific factual findings [...] that outweigh the general history of access and the
public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the
judicial process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (citations and quotations
omitted); Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679.
2

In support of their motion for leave to file under seal, Defendants rely only
upon the fact that they intend to file police reports which they assert contain
confidential criminal justice information protected under Montana law.
Defendants’ mere reference to undescribed police reports and the Montana
Criminal Justice Information Act of 1979 (the Act) does not satisfy the
“compelling reasons” requirement under federal law as articulated in Kamakana
and Pintos. It is also important to point out that the Act does not definitively
categorize all police reports as either confidential or public documents. See Havre
Daily News, LLC v. City of Havre, 142 P.3d 864, 870-71 (Mont. 2006). Based on
the statutory definitions in the Act, the Montana “legislature has paradoxically
classified [various police reports] as both public criminal justice information and
confidential criminal justice information.” Havre Daily News, 142 P.3d at 870-71
and n.3.
Additionally, any determination to be made by the court as to whether a
particular item of criminal justice information is protected from dissemination as
confidential information under the Act requires a case-by-case “fact-intensive
inquiry.” Havre Daily News, 142 P.3d at 869-70. Here Defendants have not
identified the specific police reports they want to have filed under seal, they have
not described the specific information within each police report that is
3

confidential, and they have not articulated the requisite compelling reasons why
the information should remain under seal as opposed to being subject to public
inspection.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for leave to
file their statement of undisputed facts and associated police reports under seal is
DENIED without prejudice.
DATED this 20th day of October, 2011.

/s/ Jeremiah C. Lynch
Jeremiah C. Lynch
United States Magistrate Judge

4