White v. Wilberforce University et al

Filing 7

ORDER denying without prejudice to refiling 4 Joint Motion to File Document Under Seal. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 8/17/17. (sct)

Case: 1:16-cv-01165-TSB Doc #: 7 Filed: 08/17/17 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 32

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
MONIQUA WHITE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WILBERFORCE UNIVERSITY, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:16-CV-1165
Judge Timothy S. Black

ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION
FOR PERMISSION TO FILE UNDER SEAL (Doc. 4)
I.

INTRODUCTION

This is an employment discrimination lawsuit. On December 21, 2016, Plaintiff
filed the Complaint alleging Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of sex
and race and retaliated against Plaintiff for engaging in protected activity. (Doc. 1). The
Complaint asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), as well as Ohio
Revised Code § 4112.01, et seq. (Id.)
The parties have resolved their claims and executed a settlement agreement. On
July 21, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion for approval of their settlement agreement.
(Doc. 5). Also on July 21, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion for permission to file the
settlement agreement under seal. (Doc. 4). The parties do not explain why any
information in their settlement agreement warrants filing under seal, only that the terms
of the agreement “are confidential” and “the parties desire that the terms and conditions
of [the settlement agreement] therefore not be entered into the public record.” (Id. at 1).

Case: 1:16-cv-01165-TSB Doc #: 7 Filed: 08/17/17 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: 33

II.

STANDARD

A district court’s decision to seal court records is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. Klingenberg v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Co., 658 Fed. Appx. 202, 207 (6th
Cir. 2016) (citing Shane Grp. Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 825 F.3d 299, 306 (6th Cir.
2016)). However, “the district court’s decision is not accorded the deference that
standard normally brings.” Id.
That is because there is a “stark” difference between, on one hand, the propriety of
allowing litigants to exchange documents in secret, and on the other hand, allowing
litigants to shield from public view those documents which are ultimately relied on in the
Court’s adjudication. See Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305. Parties are typically entitled to a
“protective order” limiting disclosure of documents in discovery upon a mere showing of
good cause. Id. However, “very different considerations apply” when these materials are
filed in the public record. Id.
Unlike information merely exchanged between the parties, the public has a strong
interest in obtaining the information contained in the court record. Id. Accordingly, the
courts have long recognized a “strong presumption in favor of openness” of court
records. Id. (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1180
(6th Cir. 1983)).
Multiple times in the past two years the Sixth Circuit has explained that a party
moving to seal court records must overcome a significant burden. See Shane Grp., 825
F.3d at 305-06; Klingenberg, 658 Fed. Appx. at 207-08; Rudd Equip. Co. v. John Deere

2

Case: 1:16-cv-01165-TSB Doc #: 7 Filed: 08/17/17 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: 34

Constr. & Forestry Co., 834 F.3d 589, 593-96 (6th Cir. 2016). According to the Sixth
Circuit:
The burden of overcoming that presumption [of openness] is borne by the
party that seeks to seal them. In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 194 (3d
Cir. 2001). The burden is a heavy one: “Only the most compelling reasons
can justify the non-disclosure of judicial records.” In re Knoxville NewsSentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983). . . . And even where a
party can show a compelling reason why certain documents or portions
thereof should be sealed, the seal itself must be narrowly tailored to serve
that reason. See, e.g., Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of California,
Riverside Cnty., 464 U.S. 501, 509-11, 104 S. Ct. 819, 78 L. Ed. 2d 629
(1984). The proponent of sealing therefore must “analyze in detail,
document by document, the propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and
legal citations.” Baxter, 297 F.3d at 548.
Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305-06.
A movant’s obligation to provide compelling reasons justifying the seal exists
even if the parties themselves agree the filings should be sealed. See Rudd Equip., 834
F.3d at 595 (noting the parties “could not have waived the public’s First Amendment and
common law right of access to court filings[]”) (citation omitted); see also In re Knoxville
News-Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470, 475 (6th Cir. 1983) (in reviewing a motion to seal, the
district court has “an obligation to consider the rights of the public”). Simply put, this
Court has an obligation to keep its records open for public inspection and that obligation
is not conditioned upon the desires of the parties to the case. Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at
307.
A district court that chooses to seal court records must set forth specific findings
and conclusions “which justify nondisclosure to the public.” Id. at 306 (quoting Brown &
Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1176). A court’s failure to set forth reasons explaining why the
3

Case: 1:16-cv-01165-TSB Doc #: 7 Filed: 08/17/17 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: 35

interests in support of nondisclosure are compelling, why the interests supporting access
are less so, and why the seal itself is no broader than necessary is grounds to vacate an
order to seal. Id.
III.

ANALYSIS

The parties’ joint motion to file under seal falls woefully short of the standards
established by the Sixth Circuit. The parties merely assert that they decided to keep the
terms of their settlement confidential and accordingly, “desire” that they not be part of
the public record. (Doc. 4 at 1).
The parties’ preference to keep their agreement confidential is insufficient to
warrant a seal. See Rudd Equip., 834 F.3d at 595. In light of the standards set forth by
the Sixth Circuit, our fellow District Courts have recognized parties may not seal a
proposed FLSA settlement agreement merely because the parties considered the
agreement to be confidential. See Combs v. Twins Grp., Inc., No. 3:16-cv-295, 2017 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 68238, at **2-3 (S.D. Ohio May 4, 2017) (Newman, MJ); Lee v. Asurian
Ins. Servs., Inc., 206 F. Supp. 3d 1307, 1309 (M. D. Tenn. 2016) (noting that an
agreement settling an FLSA claim that is submitted for court approval is indisputably a
judicial document subject to the presumption of public access) (citation omitted).
The parties have simply not demonstrated a compelling reason for the requested
seal, nor have they submitted any information from which the Court could set forth
specific findings and conclusions justifying non-disclosure to the public.

4

Case: 1:16-cv-01165-TSB Doc #: 7 Filed: 08/17/17 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: 36

IV.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the parties’ motion to file under seal (Doc. 4) is DENIED without
prejudice to refiling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date:

8/17/17

Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge

5