Butler Brockington v. Board and Brush, LLC, 1:25-cv-00195

The case involves a memorandum and order setting standards for sealing confidential information in court records in the Eastern District of Tennessee.
Often, parties in litigation seek protective orders to keep certain discovery materials confidential between themselves.
Some parties erroneously assume that documents marked confidential in discovery can automatically be filed under seal in the court record.
The order emphasizes a strong presumption of public access to judicial records, requiring a compelling, specific justification for sealing.
The order establishes procedural requirements, including strict motion and certification practices, for sealing filings, including differences when one party wishes to file another party’s confidential materials.
The court notes that agreement between the parties about confidentiality is insufficient alone to justify sealing material in the official record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard for sealing court records	Seeks ability to file certain documents under seal due to confidentiality or party agreement	Similar interest in protecting confidential business or personal information	Court holds that public access is strongly presumed; sealing only allowed for compelling and narrow reasons
Effect of party agreement on sealing	Asserts that mutual agreement on confidentiality justifies sealing	May accept that confidentially-marked materials by agreement are sealable	Court finds that party agreement alone is insufficient to meet standard for sealing
Procedural requirements for sealing motions	Requests lesser procedural burdens or relies on existing protective order	May support easier process based on protective order	Court mandates strict compliance with local and electronic filing rules, requiring detailed motions and certifications
Redaction vs. sealing	Supports redaction or broad sealing where confidentiality is asserted	Favors sealing entire documents for confidential info	Court directs redaction is preferred unless more than 50% of document is confidential; entire documents rarely sealed

Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2016) (sets forth the high standard and compelling reasons required to seal court records)
Baxter Int'l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2002) (discusses the public's right to access court records except in exceptional circumstances)
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165 (6th Cir. 1983) (articulates the doctrine of strong presumption of public openness in judicial proceedings)
In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470 (6th Cir. 1983) (echoes the requirement for compelling justification to seal judicial records)
In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2001) (addresses the heavy burden on a party seeking to overcome the presumption of public access)