Filed: Feb. 22, 2017
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2017
Summary: OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 73 ] JAMES S. GWIN , District Judge . The parties in this unpaid wages action jointly propose a protective order to limit public disclosure of information they designate as confidential. 1 Granting a protective order motion is within the trial court's discretion, but that discretion "`is circumscribed by a long-established legal tradition' which values public access to court proceedings." 2 Unwarranted restriction of court documents hampers the public's a
Summary: OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 73 ] JAMES S. GWIN , District Judge . The parties in this unpaid wages action jointly propose a protective order to limit public disclosure of information they designate as confidential. 1 Granting a protective order motion is within the trial court's discretion, but that discretion "`is circumscribed by a long-established legal tradition' which values public access to court proceedings." 2 Unwarranted restriction of court documents hampers the public's ab..
More
OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 73]
JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge.
The parties in this unpaid wages action jointly propose a protective order to limit public disclosure of information they designate as confidential.1
Granting a protective order motion is within the trial court's discretion, but that discretion "`is circumscribed by a long-established legal tradition' which values public access to court proceedings."2 Unwarranted restriction of court documents hampers the public's ability to act as an important check on judicial integrity.3 Thus, the Sixth Circuit approaches protective order motions with a presumption in favor of public access to judicial records.4
The fact that all parties jointly seek a protective order does not overcome this presumption.5
Movants for a protective order must show substantial personal or financial harm before the Court will seal any documents.6 Here, the parties fail to meet that standard. The proposed protective order is overbroad and unspecific. The parties have asked the Court for blanket authority to designate documents as "Confidential" and "Attorneys' Eyes Only"7 and to file such documents under seal.8 The proposed order would allow overbroad discretion, limited only if the opposing party challenged a document's "confidential" or "attorneys' eyes only" designation.9
The parties are, of course, free to privately contract to limit disclosure of documents and information. Additionally, any party or non-party may move to seal individual documents— provided that they make the requisite particularized showing.
The Court thus DENIES the parties' proposed protective order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
