Lang v. First Advantage Background Services Corp.
Filing
30
Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 4/16/16 denying the parties' joint motion for a stipulated protective order. (Related Doc. 28 ) (D,MA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
-----------------------------------------------------JOHN LANG,
Plaintiff,
v.
FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND
SERVICES CORP.,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CASE NO. 15-CV-2436
OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Doc. 28]
-----------------------------------------------------JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
The parties in this Fair Credit Reporting Act case jointly propose a protective order
allowing them to limit public disclosure of information they designate as confidential.1
Granting a protective order motion is within the trial court’s discretion, but that discretion
“‘is circumscribed by a long-established legal tradition’ which values public access to court
proceedings.”2
Unwarranted restriction of court documents hampers the public’s ability to act as an
important check on judicial integrity.3 “Thus, documents filed in the court generally must be
made available to the public.”4 Moreover, even if all parties jointly seek a protective order or
propose a confidentiality agreement, this does not overcome the general rule against sealing
cases and documents.5
1
Doc. 28.
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust Co., 78 F.3d 219, 227 (6th Cir. 1996) (quoting Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1177 (6th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1100 (1984)).
3
Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1178; see also Wilson v. Am. Motor Corp., 759 F.2d 1568, 1570 (11th Cir. 1985)
(noting that “trials are public proceedings” and access to court records preserves “the rights of the public, an absent
party”).
4
Carter v. Welles-Bowen Realty, Inc., 628 F.3d 790, 790-91 (6th Cir. 2010).
5
Procter & Gamble Co., 78 F.3d at 227 (warning district courts against “abdicat[ing their] responsibility to oversee
the discovery process and to determine whether filings should be made available to the public” and against
2
Case No. 15-cv-2436
Gwin, J.
In order to have confidential information in a court record kept under seal, the movant
must make a specific showing that “disclosure of the information will result in some sort of
serious competitive or financial harm.”6 This Court agrees that a showing of substantial personal
or financial harm is required to justify an order sealing any documents in its file.
The parties’ proposed protective order is broad and unspecific. The movants ask for
blanket authority to designate documents as confidential that they mark as “Confidential
Information.”7 However, they have failed to make any specific showing that public disclosure of
particular information might cause serious harm or is otherwise warranted.8
The parties must redact social security numbers, bank account numbers, and dates of
birth from filings.9 Should the parties want additional protections, they must make a specific
showing to this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 16, 2016
s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
“turn[ing] this function over to the parties,” which would be “a violation not only of Rule 26(c) but of the principles
so painstakingly discussed in Brown & Williamson”).
6
Tinman v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 176 F.Supp.2d 743 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
7
Doc. 28-1 at 2–3.
8
See, e.g., Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1179-80. See also Local Rule 8.1
(discussing the promotion of electronic access to case files while also protecting personal privacy and other
legitimate interests).
9
Local Rule 8.1.
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?