Cawley v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc. et al

Filing 26

Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 8/20/14. The Court denies the parties' proposed stipulated protective order and the motion of Defendant Eastman Outdoors, Inc., for leave to file Exhibit A to its motion for summary judgment under seal. (Related Docs. 20 , 25 ) (M,G)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
------------------------------------------------------:
TREVOR CAWLEY,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
vs.
:
:
EASTMAN OUTDOORS, INC.,
:
ET AL.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
-------------------------------------------------------

CASE NO. 1:14-CV-00310

ORDER
[Resolving Doc. Nos. 20, 25]

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
In this action regarding Plaintiff’s injury from an allegedly defective arrow distributed by
Defendant, Defendant has moved to file under seal Exhibit A to its Motion for Summary Judgment.1/
The public’s “right to inspect and copy judicial documents and files” requires that “documents filed
in the court generally must be made available to the public.”2/ Absent a particularized showing that
disclosure of the information would result in some sort of serious competitive or financial harm, the
Court will not cloak its proceedings in secrecy.3/
Defendant here has made no such particularized showing. Defendant describes Exhibit A
as “document[ing] testing of arrows consistent with the arrow at issue in this case,”and offers
conclusory statements that these tests and their results are “proprietary” and thus “subject to

1/

Doc. 25; see also Doc. 23 (motion for summary judgment).
Carter v. Welles-Bowen Realty, Inc., 628 F.3d 790, 790-91 (6th Cir. 2010).
3/
See Tinman v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich., 176 F. Supp. 2d 743, 745 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
2/

-1-

Case Nos. 1:14-CV-00310
Gwin, J.
protection from public dissemination.”4/ But Defendant provides no concrete explanation as to how
it would be harmed by publicly sharing information that would purportedly show the arrow in
question “passed each of the manufacturer’s tests” and was “safe for its intended use.”5/ Thus, the
Defendant has failed to carry its burden
Accordingly, the motion to file under seal is DENIED. Defendant may either file its
documents in open court or withdraw them.
For similar reasons, the Court DENIES the parties’ stipulated protective order.6/ A
successful protective order motion must show specifically that disclosure of particular information
would cause serious harm.7/ Again, the movants fail to meet this standard. The parties do not explain
why they need a protective order. Instead, they merely present a proposed order with no
accompanying explanation.8/ Moreover, the proposed confidentiality agreement is exceedingly
broad and unspecific. The movants ask for blanket authority to designate documents as confidential
that they mark as “CONFIDENTIAL.”9/

The public would then have no access to these

documents.10/
The parties are, of course, free to privately contract to limit disclosure of documents and
information. And any party or non-party may move to seal individual documents provided that they

4/

Doc. 25.
Doc. 23-1 at *2.
6/
Doc. 20.
7/
See, e.g., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1177 (6th Cir. 1983).
8/
See Doc. 20.
9/
See id. at 1-2.
10/
See id. at 2-4.
5/

-2-

Case Nos. 1:14-CV-00310
Gwin, J.
make the requisite particularized showing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2014

s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-