Filed: Aug. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 19, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JULIE A. ROBINSON , Chief District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Doc. 67). For the reasons below, the Court denies this motion without prejudice. Federal courts "recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents." 1 The Court, however, does have "discretionary power to control and seal, if necessary, records and files in its possession.
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JULIE A. ROBINSON , Chief District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Doc. 67). For the reasons below, the Court denies this motion without prejudice. Federal courts "recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents." 1 The Court, however, does have "discretionary power to control and seal, if necessary, records and files in its possession."..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JULIE A. ROBINSON, Chief District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Doc. 67). For the reasons below, the Court denies this motion without prejudice.
Federal courts "recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents."1 The Court, however, does have "discretionary power to control and seal, if necessary, records and files in its possession."2 "In exercising this discretion, [the court] weigh[s] the interests of the public, which are presumptively paramount, against those advanced by the parties."3 "The party seeking to overcome the presumption bears the burden of showing some significant interest that outweighs the presumption."4 Additionally,
The fact that the exhibits are "confidential" within the meaning of the parties' protective order has no bearing on whether those exhibits should be sealed in the record. The disclosure analysis is simply not the same under Rule 26(c), which applies to private materials uncovered in discovery that are not part of the judicial record. The disclosure analysis under Rule 26(c) generally balances the need for discovery against the need for confidentiality. But once such discovery material is filed with the court, it becomes a judicial record and the standard that applies when a party wants to keep such material under seal is much higher.5
The Court finds that Defendants have not met their burden of demonstrating that they have a significant interest that outweighs the presumption of public access to the exhibits they seek to file under seal. Defendants' motion simply states that "Defendants seek to file Confidential Exhibits which have been marked `Confidential.'"6 Without any specific argument as to how these exhibits raise significant interests in confidentiality, the Court cannot conduct the balancing test to determine whether it is appropriate to file the exhibits under seal. To the extent Defendants believe there is a significant interest that justifies sealing these exhibits, they may refile their motion, detailing to the Court the significant interests in confidentiality raised by these exhibits.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Doc. 67) is denied without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
