Adkins v. Restaurant Management Group, LLC
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re 15 Order on Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge William B Carter on 2/23/12. (KFB, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT GREENVILLE
LINDA ADKINS and KENNETH ADKINS
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC )
d/b/a HARDEE’S OF ERWIN
)
)
Defendants.
)
Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-133
Mattice/Carter
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The parties in the instant case have submitted an AAgreed Protective Order@ for entry.
The undersigned will enter the Agreed Protective Order simultaneously with this ORDER but
this Order STRIKES the following sentence on page two of the Agreed Protective Order: “Any
confidential material submitted or presented to, or filed with, the Court having jurisdiction over
the action shall be accompanied by a motion to place the materials under seal and shall not be
available to persons other than as authorized by this Agreed Protective Order.”
This provision, now stricken, improperly puts the burden on the party who wants to file
the document to request that it be filed under seal. The party who has designated the document
as confidential should be the party moving to seal the document since that party is in the better
position to explain to the Court why it should be filed under seal. This Court cannot place under
seal any documents filed with the Court, even those designated as Aconfidential@ by the parties,
absent good cause to do so as the public has a paramount interest in access to all court
documents. Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust Co., 78 F. 3d 219, 227 (6th Cir. 1996);
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1177-1181 (6th Cir. 1983). In
1
addition, E.D.TN. LR 26.4 flatly prohibits filing any document under seal without prior showing
of good cause to the satisfaction of the Court. It is not sufficient to file a motion to seal which
simply states that the document has been designated as confidential by the parties.
In Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust Co., 78 F.3d 219, 227 (6th Cir. 1996), the
Sixth Circuit directed that no court papers may be placed under seal absent Agood cause shown.@
Id. at 227. The Court then referred to its earlier decision of Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1177-1181 (6th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1100 (1984), as
the decision in which Athe principlesA of sealing court papers for good cause shown is Aso
painstakingly discussed.@ Id. at 227.
In Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1177-1181 (6th Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1100 (1984), the Sixth Circuit began its discussion of when court
papers could be placed under seal by recognizing the long standing tradition of public access to
court proceedings in this country. The Court articulated three reasons for this right of public
access. First, Apublic trials play an important role as outlets for community concern, hostility
and emotions. When judicial decisions are known to be just and when the legal system is moving
to vindicate societal wrongs, members of the community are less likely to act as self-appointed
law enforcers or vigilantes.@ Id. at 1178 (internal citations omitted). Second, Apublic access
provides a check on the courts. Judges know that they will continue to be held responsible by
the public for their rulings. Without access to the proceedings, the public cannot analyze and
critique the reasoning of the court....One of the ways we minimize judicial error and misconduct
is through public scrutiny and discussion.@ Id. Third, Aopen trials promote true and accurate fact
finding.@ Id. (external citation omitted.).
2
The right of access is not absolute, however. Id. at 1179. There are two categories of
exceptions to the right of public access. The first category is the need to keep dignity and order
in the courtroom. In such an instance, the legitimate societal interest in protecting the
adjudicatory process from disruption outweighs the interest of unfettered public access to the
proceedings. Id. The second category consists of restrictions based on the content of the
information to be disclosed to the public. Id. Certain content based exceptions outweigh the
right to public access. Some of these exceptions include:
1) a defendant=s right to a fair trial,
2) trade secrets,
3) national security, and
4) certain privacy rights of participants and third parties.
Id.
In light of the foregoing, it is ORDERED the stricken sentence be SUBSTITUTED with
the following paragraph:
If any party desires that materials containing confidential information be filed with the
Court, that party shall give opposing counsel five (5) days notice. Thereafter, any party
may file a motion requesting that the papers be filed under seal. In filing this motion, the
moving party MUST comply with Rule 12.2 of the Electronic Case Filing Rules and
Procedures. If the motion is granted, the clerk=s office will retrieve the document and
redocket it. If the motion is denied, the clerk=s office will delete the document and modify
the docket entry to note the document was deleted upon the denial of the motion to seal.
SO ORDERED.
ENTER.
SBj|ÄÄ|tÅ UA `|àv{xÄÄ VtÜàxÜ
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?