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)
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?