Elliott v. First Federal Community Bank of Bucyrus

Filing 37

ORDER denying without prejudice 36 Motion to File Document Under Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on January 31, 2018. (jlk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
GEORGE RALPH ELLIOTT,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 2:17-cv-42
Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

v.

FIRST FEDERAL COMMUNITY
BANK OF BUCYRUS,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File
Documents Under Seal. (ECF No. 32.) Defendant seeks leave to file under seal certain
deposition exhibits because the parties have deemed that information confidential under the
Agreed Protective Order (ECF No. 17) that was previously entered in this case. (ECF No. 32 at
2.)
It is well established that “every court has supervisory power over its own records and
files.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, (1978). A court’s discretion to seal records
from public inspection, however, is limited by “the presumptive right of the public to inspect and
copy judicial documents and files,” which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit as described as a “long-established legal tradition.” In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co.,
Inc., 723 F.2d 470, 473–74 (6th Cir. 1983); see also Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v.
FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1178–80 (6th Cir. 1983) (discussing the justifications for the “strong
presumption in favor of openness”). Certainly, a court may limit public access in extraordinary

cases, where the court files may “become a vehicle for improper purpose.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at
598; see also In re Perrigo Co., 128 F.3d 430, 446 (6th Cir. 1997) (Moore, J., concurring in part
and dissenting in part) (declaring that “[s]ealing court records . . . is a drastic step, and only the
most compelling reasons should ever justify non-disclosure of judicial records”). The Sixth
Circuit has indicated that the exceptions to the presumption fall into two categories: (1)
exceptions “based on the need to keep order and dignity in the courtroom”; and (2) “contentbased exemptions,” which “include certain privacy rights of participants or third parties, trade
secrets, and national security.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 710 F.2d at 1179 (citations
omitted). Notably, the Sixth Circuit recently emphasized the public’s “strong interest in
obtaining the information contained in the Court record.” Shane Group, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
In the instant case, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the cited
deposition exhibits should be sealed. While parties to litigation may maintain certain materials
in confidence, the actual filing of documents—which implicates the interest of the public in
unencumbered access to court proceedings—should not routinely be made under seal. Shane
Group, Inc., 825 F.3d at 305; Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust Co., 78 F.3d 219, 227 (6th
Cir. 1996); Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 710 F.2d at 1178–80. Accordingly,
Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal (ECF No. 32) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: January 31, 2018

/s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2