Beyoglides v. Montgomery County Sheriff Department et al

Filing 126

ORDER AND ENTRY DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL (DOC. 125 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 11/7/16. (kma)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
DAVID M. HOPPER, Special
Administrator of the Estate of Robert
Andrew Richardson, Sr.,

Case No. 3:14-cv-158

Plaintiff,
vs.
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman
(Consent case)
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
SHERRIFF, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER AND ENTRY DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL (DOC. 125)
______________________________________________________________________________
This civil consent case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file exhibits
under seal. Doc. 125. In support of the motion, Plaintiff cites only a Stipulated Protective Order
of the Court as the underlying reason for seeking such request. Id. Notably, that Order itself
requires a showing of “good cause” and a statement regarding “the legal basis for filing under
seal” before leave in that regard can be granted. Doc. 33 at PageID 254.
Further, the Sixth Circuit “recently clarified the ‘stark difference’ between court orders
entered to preserve the secrecy of proprietary information while the parties trade discovery, and
the sealing of the court’s docket and filings[.]” Rudd Equip. Co., Inc. v. John Deere Constr. &
Forestry Co., 834 F.3d 589, 593–94 (6th Cir. 2016). “Secrecy is acceptable at the discovery
stage[.]” Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Reliable Transp. Specialists, Inc., No. 15-12954,
2016 WL 6134480, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 21, 2016). However, “very different considerations
apply” when parties seek to file “material in the court record.” Id. (citing Shane Grp., Inc. v.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016). When parties seek to file
material as part of the record, “[t]he public’s focus is not only on the litigation’s result, but ‘also
on the conduct giving rise to the case[.]’” Id. As a result, “the public is entitled to assess for
itself the merits of judicial decisions.” Id. (quoting Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305).
Thus, a party maintaining that records should be sealed from public view upon filing
bears the heavy burden of setting forth specific reasons why the interests in “nondisclosure are
compelling, why the interests supporting access are less so, and why the seal itself is no broader
than necessary.” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 306 (2016); see also Rudd Equip, 834 F.3d at 593-94.
An order sealing records is subject to being vacated in the absence of specific findings in that
regard. Id. “[E]ven 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.”
Id. at 305. As a result “[t]he proponent of sealing . . . must ‘analyze in detail, document by
document, the propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.” Id. at 305-06.
Here, Plaintiff’s motion lacks the requisite analysis required to meet the heavy burden of
sealing records from public view. As a result, such motion (doc. 125) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE to refiling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

November 7, 2016

s/ Michael J. Newman
Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge

2