Lykins et al v. First Acceptance Corporation et al

Filing 69

ORDER: The parties attached to their notice 67 a proposed protective order (Docket Entry No. 67-1), which the Court construes as a joint motion for entry of a protective order, and, as such, it is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Juliet E. Griffin on 2/19/15. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
DAVID LYKINS; PAMELA
CRAIGHEAD; MAURICE BULLARD;
and DONNA BURLESON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly
situated

)
)
)
)
)
)
v.
)
)
FIRST ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION; )
FIRST ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE
)
COMPANY, INC.; FIRST
)
ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE
)
COMPANY OF TENNESSEE, INC.; and )
FIRST ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE
)
COMPANY OF GEORGIA, INC.
)

No. 3-13-1374

ORDER
The parties attached to their notice (Docket Entry No. 67) a proposed protective order
(Docket Entry No. 67-1), which the Court construes as a joint motion for entry of a protective order,
and, as such, it is GRANTED.
By contemporaneously entered order, the parties' proposed protective order is entered, except
that the Court has modified § 9 to delete the proposed provision that relieves the filing party from
filing a motion to seal in accord with § 5.07 of Administrative Order No. 167.
While the Court is willing to enter a protective order preventing disclosure of information
during discovery, there is a heightened standard if a party wants to file material otherwise covered
by the protective order under seal. The fact that information is subject to a protective order is not
sufficient justification, in and of itself, to make a filing under seal. Rather, the filing party must
show that filing under seal is proper under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See
also Procter & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust Co., 78 F.3d 219 (6th Cir. 1996); and Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 710 F.2d 1165 (6th Cir. 1983). Specifically,
the filing party must "provide an adequate and specific explanation as to why the [filing] should be
sealed and apprise the court of the specific harm that will occur if the [filing] is not sealed." United

States v. Woods, No. 12-6307 (6th Cir. Apr. 26, 2013); Elliott Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2009 WL
750780, *10 (6th Cir. Mar. 23, 2009) ("strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial
proceedings," citing EEOC v. National Children's Ctr., Inc., 98 F.3d 1406, 1409 (5th Cir. 1996)).
In addition, to the extent feasible, the filing party shall also file a redacted version of the
filing proposed to be filed under seal that will be available for public view.
It is so ORDERED.

JULIET GRIFFIN
United States Magistrate Judge

2