961 F. Supp. 2d 803
M.D.N.C.2013Background
- This matter concerns Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal Exhibits filed in support of their response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; defendants seek sealing, but plaintiffs move to seal with defendants’ support.
- The court tentatively recognizes a First Amendment right of access to the materials sought to be sealed and requires a compelling interest heavily outweighing the public’s interest to seal.
- The exhibits in question include personnel information, statements about events, beneficiary-change forms, and handwritten notes; some contain social security numbers.
- The motion to seal was publicly docketed since July 8, 2013, with no intervening challenges to seal, satisfying the “public notice” prerequisite.
- The court determines the exhibits are judicial records for purposes of access because they are relied upon in a dispositive summary judgment context, and thus a First Amendment right of access applies, though redaction of SSNs may be required in any renewed sealing motion.
- The court denies blanket sealing but allows a renewed motion within ten days, requiring evidentiary support and redacted public copies for any sealed material; the sealed exhibits (Doc. 51) will remain under seal pending renewal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the materials are judicial records with public access rights | Plaintiffs argue for openness of materials used in dispositive motion | Defendants contend some materials contain confidential information warranting sealing | Yes, there is a First Amendment right of access, but blanket sealing is denied pending renewal |
| Whether a compelling interest justifies sealing the documents | Public access should prevail unless a compelling interest is shown | Confidential personnel information could justify sealing | No compelling interest shown to seal the exhibits as a whole; sealing denied but with leave to renew with specifics and redactions |
| Procedural handling of potential sealing | A renewed motion should be permitted with detailed evidentiary support | Restatement not explicitly required in renewal | Renewal permitted within 10 days with redacted public copies and proposed findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1978) (public right of access to judicial records; First Amendment and common law)
- Landmark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (U.S. 1978) (public confidence in courts; public business in public)
- Washington Post v. Robinson, 386 F.3d 567 (4th Cir. 2004) (First Amendment right of access to judicial records; dispositive motion context)
- Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249 (4th Cir. 1988) (compelling interest standard for access; balancing test)
- Stone v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 855 F.2d 178 (4th Cir. 1988) (procedural prerequisites for sealing; public notice)
- In re Application of United States for an Order Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 2703(D), 707 F.3d 283 (4th Cir. 2013) (definition of judicial records and access to materials used to obtain orders)
- In re Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 67 F.3d 296 (4th Cir. 1995) (documents in connection with a motion to dismiss not always judicial records)