Medrano v. Flowers Food, Inc. et al

Filing 167

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO FILE CERTAIN EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL by Magistrate Judge Kirtan Khalsa. (kmt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
PAUL MEDRANO on his own behalf and
on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-350 JCH/KK

FLOWER FOODS, INC. et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO FILE CERTAIN EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Certain Exhibits Under
Seal (Doc. 165), filed January 24, 2019. The Court, having reviewed the motion and having noted
that it is unopposed, FINDS that the motion is well taken in part and should be GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows.
“Courts have long recognized a common-law right of access to judicial records.” Mann v.
Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007). “Although this right is not absolute, there is a
strong presumption in favor of public access . . . particularly . . . where the district court use[s] the
sealed documents to determine litigants’ substantive legal rights.” United States v. Pickard, 733
F.3d 1297, 1302 (10th Cir. 2013).
[T]he presumption in favor of access to judicial records may be overcome where
countervailing interests heavily outweigh the public interests in access. The burden
is on the party seeking to restrict access to show some significant interest that
outweighs the presumption.
Colony Ins. Co. v. Burke, 698 F.3d 1222, 1241 (10th Cir. 2012) (internal citations and quotation
marks omitted).

“[T]he district court, in exercising its discretion, must weigh the interests of the public,
which are presumptively paramount, against those advanced by the parties.” Pickard, 733 F.3d at
1302.

“Whether a trial court exercises sound discretion will be based on the facts and

circumstances of the individual case and the weighing of the parties’ interests.” Riker v. Fed.
Bureau of Prisons, 315 F. App’x 752, 755 (10th Cir. 2009). 1 The district court must also “consider
whether selectively redacting just the . . . sensitive, and previously undisclosed, information from
the sealed . . . documents and then unsealing the rest” would adequately protect the privacy
interests of the party seeking to seal court documents. Pickard, 733 F.3d at 1304. The fact that
information has “already been made public” will undermine a party’s privacy concerns. Id. at
1305 (citing Mann, 477 F.3d at 1149).
In the instant case, Plaintiffs seek to file under seal “certain exhibits that will be comprised
of documents produced by Defendants in discovery that Defendants have designated as
‘confidential.’” (Doc. 165 at 1.) Plaintiffs indicate that the exhibits to be offered are in support of
their responses to Defendants’ Opposed Motion for Decertification of the Conditionally Certified
Collective Action and Memorandum in Support (Doc. 158) (“Defendants’ Motion for
Decertification”), and Defendants’ Motion and Consolidated Memorandum in Support of their
Omnibus Motion for Summary Judgment as to Various Defenses to Plaintiffs’ Claims (Doc. 159)
(“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment”). (Id.) Plaintiffs have not further identified the
documents they seek to file under seal or explained any party’s interest in keeping these documents
private. (See generally id.) This clearly fails to satisfy Plaintiffs’ burden of showing a significant
interest that heavily outweighs the public’s strong, presumptive right of access to these documents,

1

Unpublished decisions are not binding precedent in the Tenth Circuit but may be cited for their persuasive value.
United States v. Austin, 426 F.3d 1266, 1274 (10th Cir. 2005).

2

which the Court will likely use to adjudicate the parties’ substantive legal rights. Further, Plaintiffs
do not appear to have considered whether redaction of sensitive and previously undisclosed
information in the documents would sufficiently protect the parties’ privacy interests. For these
reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to justify permanently sealing any documents to
be attached as exhibits to their responses at this time.
Because Plaintiffs’ deadline for filing their responses to Defendants’ motions expires on
January 25, 2019, because Plaintiffs represent that Defendants have designated the documents in
question as confidential, and to temporarily preserve the documents’ confidentiality, the Court will
grant the motion in part and allow Plaintiffs to temporarily file the documents in question as
separate sealed exhibits to their responses to Defendants’ motions. However, within ten (10) days
of entry of this Order, the parties are directed to confer and attempt to agree upon appropriate
redactions to the documents temporarily filed under seal pursuant to this Order. The parties should
make these redactions in light of the law discussed herein. Such redactions should be no more
extensive than necessary to protect the parties’ private, sensitive, previously undisclosed
information. If the parties are able to agree upon such redactions, Plaintiffs shall re-file the
documents in question unsealed and with the agreed-upon redactions. If the parties cannot agree
upon appropriate redactions, either side may file a renewed, properly supported motion to seal the
documents. If neither redacted documents nor a renewed motion to seal are filed within twentyone (21) days of entry of this Order, the Court will unseal the documents.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs are permitted to file as separate exhibits
under seal documents produced by Defendants in discovery that Defendants have designated as
“confidential” and on which Plaintiffs rely to support their responses to Defendants’ Motion for

3

Decertification and/or Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Documents so filed will be
accessible only by the parties and the Court during the pendency of the seal.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within ten (10) days of entry of this Order, the parties
shall confer and attempt to agree upon appropriate redactions to the documents temporarily filed
under seal pursuant to this Order. If the parties are able to agree upon such redactions, Plaintiffs
shall re-file the documents unsealed and with the agreed-upon redactions. If the parties cannot
agree upon appropriate redactions, either side may file a renewed motion to seal the documents.
As to each document temporarily filed under seal pursuant to this Order, if neither a redacted
document nor a renewed motion to seal is filed within twenty-one (21) days of entry of this Order,
the Court will unseal the document at issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________________________________
KIRTAN KHALSA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4