Ultima Services Corporation v. U.S. Department of Agriculture
2:20-cv-00041
E.D. Tenn.Mar 5, 2020Background:
- This Memorandum and Order (Ultima Services Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Agriculture, E.D. Tenn.) sets forth the court's standards and procedures for filing materials under seal in the court record.
- The court routinely enters Rule 26(c) protective orders for discovery confidentiality, but emphasizes that discovery confidentiality does not automatically permit sealing of court records.
- The Sixth Circuit presumption of public access governs court records; a party seeking to seal bears a heavy burden to show "compelling reasons."
- Even when sealing is justified, the seal must be narrowly tailored; wholesale sealing of motions and supporting documents is highly disfavored.
- The Order prescribes specific procedural requirements: a motion to seal complying with local and CM/ECF rules, proposed redactions, filing unredacted highlighted copies, and deadlines for responses by the designating party.
- Noncompliance may result in summary denial; any protective-order provisions conflicting with this Order are stricken.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Rule 26(c) confidentiality designation alone justifies sealing court filings | Designation establishes confidentiality and should allow sealing | Designation alone is insufficient; public access prevails unless higher standard met | Designation alone is inadequate; must meet sealing standard |
| Standard required to seal judicial records | Confidential business/trade-secret status warrants sealing | Public has strong presumption of access; sealing requires compelling reasons | Court requires compelling reasons and specific findings to seal |
| Scope of any permitted seal (tailoring/redaction) | Broad sealing may be necessary to protect secrets | Seals must be narrowly tailored; prefer redaction over full sealing | Seal must be narrowly tailored; redaction required unless >50% sealed |
| Procedural steps to obtain leave to file under seal | Follow local rules and file supporting declarations | Court enforces strict procedural compliance and may deny noncompliant motions | Movant must file motion, proposed redacted public version, highlighted sealed copy, and follow deadlines; failure may lead to denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2016) (articulates compelling‑reasons standard and narrow‑tailoring requirement for sealing)
- Rudd Equip. Co. v. John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co., 834 F.3d 589 (6th Cir. 2016) (requires compelling reasons to justify sealing and affirms public‑access presumption)
- Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165 (6th Cir. 1983) (explains public‑access rationale and exceptions based on content or courtroom order)
- In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2001) (places burden of overcoming public‑access presumption on party seeking seal)
- In re Knoxville News‑Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470 (6th Cir. 1983) (discusses presumptive right of public to inspect judicial documents)
- Baxter Int'l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2002) (distinguishes discovery‑stage protective orders from sealing court records)
- Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1982) (addresses different considerations at adjudication stage vs. discovery)
- In re Morning Song Bird Food Litig., 831 F.3d 765 (6th Cir. 2016) (reaffirms First Amendment right of access to court documents)
- In re Se. Milk Antitrust Litig., 666 F. Supp. 2d 908 (E.D. Tenn. 2009) (explains inadequacy of conclusory harm allegations and need for document‑by‑document analysis)