Opinion
2:21-cv-11563
08-17-2022
WILLIAM DAVID HICKS, JR., Plaintiff, v. HEIDI WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants.
Denise Page Hood District Judge
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO SEAL (ECF No. 54)
ANTHONY P. PATTI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff has filed a response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the basis of exhaustion, on which Plaintiff hand-wrote the word sealed. (ECF No. 39.) However, the Court DENIES any request to seal this response: first, because it fails to comply with my Practice Guidelines for “Protective Orders and Sealing of Records;” second, because it does not comply with Local Rule 5.3 (E.D. Mich. LR 5.3); and, third, because the Court's own review of the motion response does not reveal highly confidential information that requires sealing. “The courts have long recognized ... a ‘strong presumption in favor of openness' as to court records,” and the “burden of overcoming that presumption is borne by the party that seeks to seal them.” Shane Group, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). “The burden is a heavy one:
‘Only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.'” Id. (quoting In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983)).
It is SO ORDERED.