McGirr et al v. Rehme et al

Filing 57

ORDER denying 55 Motion for Leave to File Depositions under seal. Signed by Robert H. Cleland on 7/25/2016. (lgw)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION CONNIE MCGIRR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 16-464 THOMAS F. REHME, et al., Defendants. / ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DEPOSITIONS UNDER SEAL Pending before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Depositions Under Seal. (Dkt. # 55.) Plaintiffs seek to seal three depositions “pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order (Doc. 46);” despite their admission that the depositions do not contain confidential information, they seek to file documents under seal “out of an abundance of caution.” (Dkt. # 55, Pg. ID at 1122.) The referenced protective order provides no automatic right to file sealed documents, and the court concludes that Plaintiffs have not met their heavy burden in justifying the non-disclosure of judicial records. See In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the court will deny the Motion. The court’s protective order provides no basis for Plaintiffs’ request. While protective orders are generally broad in nature and often readily granted, the decision to seal a document involves very different and weightier considerations: “[u]nlike information merely exchanged between the parties, ‘[t]he public has a strong interest in obtaining the information contained in the court record.’” Shane Group, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., — F.3d — (6th Cir. 2016), 2016 WL 3163073, at *3 (citing Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1180 (6th Cir. 1983)). A party seeking to seal documents may do so only by overcoming the long-recognized and “strong presumption of openness” as to court records. Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1179. The moving party bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of openness and can do so only by providing “the most compelling reasons” for nondisclosure. Shane Group, 2016 WL 3163073, at *3. Plaintiffs admit that none of the information contained in the depositions is confidential and seek to seal the material only “out of an abundance of caution.” Such a showing is insufficient to justify sealing the documents. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Depositions Under Seal (Dkt. # 55) is DENIED. s/Robert H. Cleland ROBERT H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: July 25, 2016 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on this date, July 25, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/Lisa Wagner Case Manager and Deputy Clerk (313) 234-5522 C:\Users\wagner\AppData\Local\Temp\notesDF63F8\16-464.MCGIRR.denyseal.smq.wpd 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?