Meyers et al v. Cincinnati Board Of Education et al

Filing 71

ORDER granting 64 Motion to File Document Under Seal. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 11/9/2020. (rrs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
KAREN MEYERS, et al.,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiffs,
vs.
CINCINNATI BOARD OF
EDUCATION, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:17-cv-521
Judge Timothy S. Black

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDERSEAL (Doc. 64)
This civil action is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to seal confidential
student records in support of Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. (Doc. 64). Plaintiffs seek to
file student records, a student health record, and Carson Elementary School’s
investigative under seal pursuant to Local Rule 5.2.1(a) without submitting redacted
versions. On October 27, 2020, the Court temporarily granted Plaintiffs leave to file the
documents at issue under seal for the Court to review. Plaintiffs have now filed the
documents at issue, and their motion is ripe for review.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
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.

There is a “stark” difference between, on one hand, the propriety of allowing
litigants to exchange documents in secret, and on the other, allowing litigants to shield
those documents which are ultimately relied on in the Court’s adjudication from public
view. 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)).
Recently, 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 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,

2

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 which 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
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.
II. ANALYSIS
After carefully reviewing the documents at issue, it is clear that the exhibits
contain confidential information related to students at Carson Elementary that warrant
being filed under seal.

3

First, Plaintiffs have shown that there is a compelling reason for non-disclosure of
the documents it seeks to file under seal. The documents contain student behavior and
health records, and are protected by the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act
(“FERPA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g. Moreover, the Sixth Circuit has recognized, “the
privacy interests of innocent third parties should weigh heavily in a court’s balancing
equation.” Shane, 825 F.3d at 308. Here, the Court finds that allowing Plaintiffs to file
the exhibits under seal is appropriate to protect confidential information and the privacy
of involved students.
Next, there will be no harm to the public interest if Plaintiffs file the exhibits at
issue under seal. On the Court’s review, the public has little interest in confidential
information related to elementary school students, and will not need that information to
understand the events giving rise to this dispute, or the arguments made in that motion.
See Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305.
Finally, Plaintiffs seeks to file the confidential exhibits under seal without filing
redacted versions. (Doc. 64 at 1–2). The Court prefers, and the public interest generally
favors, a party seeking to file documents under seal to also file redacted versions on the
public docket. Yet after a thorough review of the confidential documents, the Court
agrees with Plaintiffs that “the mere redaction of names and identifying information is
not enough to adequately protect the privacy of the involved students.” (Id. at 2).
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to file underseal without also filing a redacted version is
well-taken.

4

IV. CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for leave to file
confidential student reocrds under seal (Doc. 64) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ confidential
exhibits in support of Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (Docs. 65-1–7) may remain under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 11/9/2020

/s/ Timothy S. Black
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge

5