Opinion
Civil Action 3:22-cv-00030
08-15-2022
SALZGITTER MANNESMANN INTERNATIONAL (USA) INC., Petitioner. v. SUN STEEL COMPANY LLC d/b/a ESMARK STEEL GROUP MIDWEST, LLC, and ESMARK, INC., Respondents.
ORDER AND OPINION
ANDREW M. EDISON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This order addresses the sealing of documents in this matter. In addressing the sealing issue, I am well aware that “[t]he public's right of access to judicial proceedings is fundamental.” Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 418 (5th Cir. 2021). “The principle of public access to judicial records furthers not only the interests of the outside public, but also the integrity of the judicial system itself.” United States v. Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev., 624 F.3d 685, 690 (5th Cir. 2010). The public's right of access “serves to promote trustworthiness of the judicial process, to curb judicial abuses, and to provide the public with a more complete understanding of the judicial system, including a better perception of its fairness.” Id. (quotation omitted). Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit “heavily disfavor[s] sealing information placed in the judicial record.” June Med. Servs., L.L.C. v. Phillips, 22 F.4th 512, 519-20 (5th Cir. 2022). Indeed, district courts have been instructed to be “ungenerous with their discretion to seal judicial records.” Le, 990 F.3d at 418.
With that legal backdrop out of the way, I order the following:
• The Unopposed Motion for Leave to File an Exhibit Under Seal to the Motion to Dismiss Salzgitter Mannesmann International (USA), Inc's Petition and Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award (Dkt. 23) is DENIED. The clerk is ordered to unseal Dkt. 25.
• The Unopposed Motion for Leave to File an Exhibit Under Seal to Respondents' Reply in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 41) is DENIED. The clerk is ordered to unseal Dkt. 42 and all exhibits attached to Dkt. 42.
• The Unopposed Motion for Leave to File an Exhibit Under Seal to Respondents' Corrected Reply in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 44) is DENIED. The clerk is ordered to unseal Dkt. 45 and all exhibits attached to Dkt. 45.
• The Unopposed Motion for Leave to File an Exhibit Under Seal to Respondents' Opposition to Salzgitter's Motion, in the Alternative, to Modify Arbitration Award (Dkt. 59) is DENIED. The clerk is ordered to unseal Dkt. 60 and all exhibits attached to Dkt. 60.
• The Motion for Leave to File Unredacted Response and Exhibits Under Seal (Dkt. 49) is DENIED. The clerk is ordered to unseal Dkts. 50 and 51 and all exhibits attached to Dkts. 50 and 51, with the exception that Dkt. 51-4, Dkt. 51-8, and Dkt. 51-12 are to remain under seal. These documents contain sensitive medical information and references to the name of Arbitrator Shipley's daughter. There is no need for the name of Arbitrator Shipley's daughter to be contained in the public record. I find that redacting her name in the papers filed in this case furthers her privacy interests. The parties are to carefully review those documents and redact only those portions of the documents that contain sensitive medical information or references to the name of Arbitrator Shipley's daughter. Salzgitter is ordered to send redacted copies by email to my case manager for the Court to review in camera by close of business on Friday, August 19, 2022 . In the event I conclude that the redacted documents keep sensitive medical or personal information and nothing more from public view, I will make the redacted documents part of the Court's record available for the public to access.
• At an oral hearing held on August 10, 2022, the parties informed me that there are several references in Esmark's Motion to Vacate (Dkt. 33) to the name of Arbitrator Shipley's daughter. I find that redacting her name in the papers filed in this case furthers her privacy interests. I thus order that Dkt. 33 be SEALED. Esmark is ordered to file a redacted version of its Motion to Vacate for public view by Friday, August 19, 2022, redacting only the name of Arbitrator Shipley's daughter.
• The Court's April 5, 2022 order (Dkt. 36) granting Salzgitter's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Exhibits to Response to Motion to Dismiss Under Seal is VACATED.
• The Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Exhibits to Response to Motion to Dismiss Under Seal (Dkt. 30) is DENIED. The clerk is ordered to unseal Dkt. 31 and all exhibits attached to Dkt. 31.
• The Court's April 5, 2022 order (Dkt. 37) granting the Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal to the Motion to Vacate Salzgitter Mannesmann International (USA), Inc's Petition and Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award is VACATED.
• The Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal to the Motion to Vacate Salzgitter Mannesmann International (USA), Inc's Petition and Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award (Dkt. 34) is DENIED. The clerk is ordered to unseal Dkt. 35 and all exhibits attached to Dkt. 35, with the exception that Dkt. 35-5 and Dkt. 35-6 are to remain under seal. These documents contain references to the name of Arbitrator Shipley's daughter. Esmark is ordered to file a redacted version of Dkt. 35-5 and Dkt. 35-6 for public view by Friday August 19, 2022, redacting only the name of Arbitrator Shipley's daughter.
• The exhibit to Esmark's July 29, 2022 Discovery Letter (Dkt. No. 74-1) contains references to the name of Arbitrator Shipley's daughter. I find that redacting her name in the papers filed in this case furthers her privacy interests. I thus order that Dkt. 74-1 be SEALED. Esmark is ordered to file a redacted version of Dkt. 74-1 for public view by Friday, August 19, 2022, redacting only the name of Arbitrator Shipley's daughter.
• To the extent there are other documents that the parties believe should be redacted to protect particularly sensitive information, please file a letter notifying the Court what document needs to be sealed and why. Also, please provide to my case manager redacted copies of such documents that you believe should be made available for public view. If, after reviewing those documents, I agree that the redacted documents keep sensitive information and nothing more from public view, I will make the redacted documents part of the Court's record available for the public to access.