Ellis v. Clinton County Board of Commissioners et al

Filing 35

OPINION AND ORDER denying 32 Motion to File Document Under Seal - the Motion to Seal (Doc. 32 ) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING. Defendants may make a renewed Motion to Seal consistent with this order. Signed by Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins on 09/24/2024. (bjc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
ALICIA ELLIS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CLINTON COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, et al.,
Defendants.

: Case No. 1:23-cv-341
:
:
:
:
: Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins
:
:
:
:

OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Unopposed Motion for Leave to File
Deposition Transcripts Under Seal, or in the Alternative, to File Redacted Transcripts
(“Motion to Seal”) (Doc. 32). For the reasons below, the Court DENIES the Motion to Seal
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
I.

LAW AND ANALYSIS
Defendants’ Motion to Seal seeks leave to file transcripts and exhibits introduced

during depositions of current and former Clinton County Sheriff’s Office employees,
including Plaintiff Alica Ellis, Defendant Christopher Kirk, and Sergeant Terrence Meehan.
Doc. 32, PageID 883. The Motion to Seal states that “[t]he transcripts and exhibits introduced
during these depositions additionally contain materials and discussion of a graphic and
sexually explicit nature including those referencing nonparties, allegations of sexual
misconduct, and residential and family information of current and former law enforcement
officials.” Id. The Motion to Seal also acknowledges that “[o]nly the most compelling reasons
can justify non-disclosure of judicial records,” id. (citing Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue

Shield, 825 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2016)), but only provides conclusory reasons why these
compelling reasons exist. Id.
A party seeking to seal court records bears the heavy burden of overcoming the “strong
presumption in favor of openness” as to court records. Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305 (quoting
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1179 (6th Cir. 1983)). This
presumption arises because “[t]he public has a strong interest in obtaining the information
contained in the court record . . . [including] an interest in ascertaining what evidence and
records” a court relies upon in making its decision. Lipman v. Budish, 974 F.3d 726, 753 (6th
Cir. 2020) (citing Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1180–81). Indeed, “[o]nly the most
compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.” In re Knoxville News-Sentinel
Co., Inc., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983).
In order to meet its substantial burden, the party seeking to seal court records “must
show three things: (1) a compelling interest in sealing the records; (2) that the interest in
sealing outweighs the public’s interest in accessing the records; and (3) that the request is
narrowly tailored.” Kondash v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 767 F. App’x 635, 638 (6th Cir. 2019).
The moving party must therefore “analyze in detail, document by document, the propriety of
secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305–06 (quoting Baxter
Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs, 297 F.3d 544, 548 (7th Cir. 2002)). Therefore, “a motion to seal must
address each document the moving party wants to seal or redact.” See Duff v. Centene Corp.,
No. 1:19-CV-750, 2022 WL 3151889, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 8, 2022).
Likewise, when a district court elects to seal court records, it must set forth specific
findings and conclusions that justify nondisclosure to the public. Brown & Williamson, 710
F.2d at 1176. The Court’s obligation to set forth specific findings and conclusion justifying
2

sealing “is independent of whether anyone objects to [the Motion to Seal],” and failure to do
so is itself grounds to vacate an order to seal. Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 306.
Here, the Motion to Seal is unopposed. However, Defendants, as the proponents for
sealing exhibits offered as evidence in this case bear a substantial burden under Sixth Circuit
precedent binding this Court which requires them to present a detailed, document-bydocument analysis justifying nondisclosure to the public. See id. at 305–06. In addition, Shane
Grp. requires that Defendants provide specific reasons for nondisclosure and legal citations.
Id. This detailed analysis is especially salient here where the subject matter of the case—
allegations of misconduct in a local sheriff’s office—likely implicates an important public
interest. The Motion to Seal in its present form falls well short of meeting the burden for
justifying nondisclosure of court records to the public set forth under Shane Grp., and its
progeny.
Accordingly, the Motion to Seal (Doc. 32) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO
REFILING. Defendants may make a renewed Motion to Seal consistent with this order.
II.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Seal WITHOUT

PREJUDICE TO REFILING.
SO ORDERED
September 24, 2024
Jeffery P. Hopkins
United States District Judge

3