Doe v. Shelby County Board of Education

Filing 20

ORDER granting 16 Motion to Unseal Case. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham on May 2, 2024. (cmd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
________________________________________________________________
JANE DOE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
No. 23-cv-02810-MSN-tmp
)
SHELBY COUNTY BOARD OF
)
EDUCATION,
)
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________________________________________
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO UNSEAL
________________________________________________________________
On December 28, 2023, plaintiff Jane Doe, a resident of
Memphis,

Tennessee,

filed

a

sealed

pro

se

complaint

against

defendant Shelby County Board of Education (“Board of Education”).
(ECF No. 1.) On April 17, 2024, the Board of Education filed a
motion to unseal the case, arguing that there are no allegations
in the complaint to explain why this case differs from a typical
ADA

discrimination

case.

(ECF

No.

16

at

PageID

60.)

In

her

response, Doe argues that this lawsuit could be damaging for her
career and that “she did not want to [be] subjected to possible
harassment from individual/s who is collecting information about
particular Judges of this Honorable Court.” (ECF No. 19 at PageID
67.)
“It is a long-established legal principle that the public has
the ‘presumptive right . . . to inspect and copy judicial documents

and files.’” Gomez v. City of Memphis, Tenn., No. 2:19-cv-02412JPM-tmp, 2020 WL 1918243, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 20, 2020) (quoting
In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., Inc., 723 F.2d 470, 474 (6th
Cir. 1983)). “The party seeking to seal the records has the heavy
burden

of

overcoming

the

‘strong

presumption

in

favor

of

openness.’” Kondash v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 767 F. App’x 635, 637
(6th Cir. 2019) (quoting Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield
of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016)). “The party seeking
to seal the records must demonstrate three things: (1) a compelling
interest in sealing the records; (2) that the interest in sealing
outweighs the public’s interest in accessing the records; and (3)
that the request is narrowly tailored.” Gomez, 2020 WL 1918243, at
*2 (quoting Kondash, 767 F. App’x at 637) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that a compelling reason
justifies sealing this complaint. Her generalized concerns about
how her lawsuit could be damaging to her career and the risk of
being

subjected

to

harassment

do

not

overcome

the

“strong

presumption in favor of openness.” Kondash, 767 F. App’x at 637.
Further, to the extent there is any arguable interest in sealing
records, those interests are outweighed by the public’s interest
in accessing the records. Finally, the blanket sealing of the
entire

case

is

clearly

overbroad

- 2 -

and

not

narrowly

tailored.

Therefore, the motion to unseal is GRANTED. The clerk of court is
hereby directed to remove the sealed classification of this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Tu M. Pham
TU M. PHAM
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
May 2, 2024
Date

- 3 -