McKnight v. Warden, Ohio State Penitentiary

Filing 297

ORDER TO REDACT AND RE-FILE - It is hereby ORDERED, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(d), that Petitioner refile the Motion to Amend (ECF No. 271) and Renewed Motion for Discovery (ECF No. 295) with identifying information for the jurors in those do cuments and their attachments redacted to obscure names and the assigned juror numbers. If either party desires to object to this Order to obtain District Judge review, they must notify the Magistrate Judge forthwith. Absent such notification, the redacted Motions and attachments are to be filed not later than August 23, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 8/20/2018. (kpf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION AT COLUMBUS
GREGORY McKNIGHT
:
Petitioner,

Case No. 2:09-cv-059
:

District Judge Susan J. Dlott
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-vsDAVID BOBBY, Warden,
:
Respondent.

ORDER TO REDACT AND RE-FILE
On two recent occasions, the Magistrate Judge has allowed Petitioner to provisionally file
documents under seal to facilitate their review by the Court for permanent sealing or unsealing, to
wit, in allowing Petitioner to file under seal his Motion to Amend (ECF No. 270) and his Renewed
Motion for Discovery (ECF No. 295). Under prevailing Sixth Circuit precedent, however, the
Court must make an independent judgment of whether court records can be permanently sealed.
Shane Group, Inc., v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d 299, 306 (6th Cir. 2016). In
moving to seal, Petitioner mentioned “the Court’s preference that all documents should be
available to the public.” (ECF No. 293, PageID 17637.) But that preference is not idiosyncratic
to this Court. Instead, it reflects the strong presumption all federal courts have long indulged in
favor of openness of court records. Shane Group, supra, citing Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1179 (6th Cir. 1983).
To justify maintaining a court record under seal, a party must overcome a heavy burden:
"Only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records." Shane Group,

1

quoting In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983). Moreover, the
greater the public interest in the litigation's subject matter, the greater the showing necessary to
overcome the presumption of access. Shane Group, citing Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1179.
A district court that chooses to seal court records must set forth specific findings and conclusions
"which justify nondisclosure to the public." Shane Group, quoting Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d
at 1176.
In seeking to justify maintaining these records under seal, Petitioner’s counsel write of the
“highly sensitive nature of the information contained within the pleading and exhibits and privacy
concerns for the jurors involved.” (ECF No. 293, PageID 17637-38.) Making the information
public is said to threaten embarrassment and potential harassment to the jurors and their family
members.” Id. at PageID 17638.
The Supreme Court concluded in Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S.Ct. 855, 197 L.Ed.2d
107 (2017), that eliminating racial bias in jury deliberations is of paramount importance to
contemporary American jurisprudence, sufficiently so to pierce the veil that has long prevented
jurors from impeaching their own verdicts. The provisionally sealed documents include evidence
racial bias may have influenced the jury deliberations in this capital case.

Under those

circumstances, the Magistrate Judge does not believe anything other than the identity of the jurors
who have provided evidence can properly remain under seal. Although no direct evidence has
been provided, it is reasonable to suppose that jurors who admitted acting out of racial bias on a
capital case or jurors who identified other jurors who had done so would be subject to harassment
if their identity became public.
Balancing the interests of jurors in avoiding harassment (which, if it occurred, might
impede their willingness to testify) and the interests of the public in knowing the bases on which

2

court action is taken, it is hereby ORDERED, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(d), that Petitioner
refile the Motion to Amend (ECF No. 271) and Renewed Motion for Discovery (ECF No. 295)
with identifying information for the jurors in those documents and their attachments redacted to
obscure names and the assigned juror numbers.
If either party desires to object to this Order to obtain District Judge review, they must
notify the Magistrate Judge forthwith. Absent such notification, the redacted Motions and
attachments are to be filed not later than August 23, 2018.
August 20, 2018.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

3