Chelsey Nelson Photography LLC v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government
624 F. Supp. 3d 761
W.D. Ky.2022Background
- Plaintiffs (Chelsey Nelson Photography LLC and Chelsey Nelson) challenged Louisville Metro’s Fairness Ordinance and sought HRC case files as discovery in support of summary judgment.
- The Court compelled limited production of HRC case files on August 25, 2021 and entered a protective order permitting specific redactions (e.g., PII, pending-complaint details, EEOC-derived materials).
- Plaintiffs later filed ~170 pages of supplemental documents under seal (designated confidential by Defendants) and were ordered to move for leave to seal.
- Defendants asked the Court to permanently seal the redacted HRC case files; Plaintiffs moved to unseal and to obtain unredacted files for two matters (Teen Challenge and Scooter’s Triple B).
- The Court applied the Sixth Circuit sealing standard, found compelling third‑party privacy and enforcement interests that justified narrow redactions, but rejected wholesale sealing.
- Holding: the redacted case files are to be unsealed with the existing narrow redactions preserved; Defendants must file unredacted Teen Challenge and Scooter’s files for the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HRC case files should remain sealed in full | Redactions already protect privacy; files should be public | Contracts/statutes and privacy justify sealing even redacted files | Denied: full sealing not justified; unseal with existing narrow redactions |
| Whether redaction equals sealing and triggers public‑access review | Redactions do not defeat public access; parties must justify withheld material | Redactions were permitted under discovery protective order | Court: redaction is treated like sealing (except for Rule 5.2 limits); redactions require the sealing standard |
| Whether protective orders/confidentiality agreements bind the court | Protective order satisfied discovery needs but does not justify permanent sealing | Confidentiality agreements and contractors require continued secrecy | Court: confidentiality agreements/protective orders alone do not overcome public access; may inform narrow redactions but not full sealing |
| Whether Teen Challenge and Scooter’s files must be filed unredacted | These incidents are already public; unredacted files needed for completeness | Produced redacted files per the discovery order; unredacted production unnecessary | Court: Defendants failed to show compelling reason for those redactions; must file unredacted versions of those two files |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165 (6th Cir.) (strong presumption of public access to court records)
- Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d 299 (6th Cir.) (party seeking seal must show compelling reasons; document-by-document analysis)
- Rudd Equip. Co. v. John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co., 834 F.3d 589 (6th Cir.) (specific findings required to justify nondisclosure)
- Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544 (7th Cir.) (court must analyze secrecy document-by-document)
- In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig., 927 F.3d 919 (6th Cir.) (redacted or sealed filings in the record are subject to public‑access review)
- Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir.) (test for what constitutes a judicial document and scope of access)
- Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir.) (public interest in underlying evidentiary material; sealed/redacted filings can be misleading)