Opinion
Case Number 01-10276-BC
October 8, 2002
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL FILE
This matter is before the Court on the joint motion of the parties for entry of an order to seal the court record in the case and for an order enjoining disclosure of the parties' settlement. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit on May 29, 2001 in state court and the case was removed to this Court on July 19, 2001. On March 13, 2002, the parties agreed to the entry of a protective order limiting the use of products of discovery, and prescribing the manner in which documents may be filed with the Court under seal.
The docket entries in this case disclose no filings under seal. On June 27, 2002, the Court entered an order of dismissal after having been notified that the parties had reached a settlement.
The terms of the settlement were not placed on the record or disclosed to the Court. The plaintiff and the defendants now seek an order sealing the entire court record contending that the nature of the allegations in the lawsuit is sensitive and potentially embarrassing to the parties; the plaintiff, who is presently in custody serving a prison sentence, and the individual defendant, who may be sentenced to a prison term, could suffer institutional repercussions if the nature of the action were disclosed; and the plaintiff's settlement proceeds might be confiscated by the Michigan Department of Corrections to pay the cost of incarceration if it learns of the settlement terms.
It is well established that this Court, as every other court, "has supervisory power over its own records and files." Nixon v. Warner Communications Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). This authority includes fashioning protective orders which limit access to certain court documents. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). But the district court's power to seal records is subject to the "long-established legal tradition" of open access to court documents. Brown Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1177 (6th Cir. 1983). As the court of appeals explained in In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., Inc., 723 F.2d 470 (6th Cir. 1983), there is a "presumptive right" of public access to court records which permits inspection and copying. The recognition of this right of access goes back to the Nineteenth Century, when, in Ex Parte Drawbraugh, 2 App.D.C. 404 (1894), the D.C. Circuit stated: "Any attempt to maintain secrecy, as to the records of this court, would seem to be inconsistent with the common understanding of what belongs to a public court of record, to which all persons have the right of access." Id. at 474 (citations omitted).
Certainly, the Court has the discretion to limit this access in extraordinary cases, such as when those seeking access intend to "gratify spite or promote public scandal through the publication of the painful and sometimes disgusting details of a divorce case," or use court "files to serve as reservoirs of libelous statements for press consumption, or as sources of business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing." Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. "Trial courts have always been afforded the power to seal their records when interests of privacy outweigh the public's right to know. But . . . the decision as to when judicial records should be sealed is left to the sound discretion of the district court, subject to appellate review for abuse." Knoxville News-Sentinel, 723 F.2d at 474.
It was observed in Tinman v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 176 F. Supp.2d 743 (E.D.Mich. 2001), that in order to have confidential information in a court record kept under seal, the movant must make a specific showing that disclosure of information would result in some sort of serious competitive or financial harm. This Court agrees that a showing of substantial personal or financial harm is a prerequisite to an order sealing a file. In this case, no such showing has been made. It appears that none of the documents in this case were filed under seal, even though there was a protective order issued on March 13, 2002 permitting such filings. Thus, the records the parties seek to seal have been open to the public from March 13, 2002 until now and any potential harm of public disclosure could have already occurred. The risk of personal embarrassment stemming from the nature of the allegations in this case has likewise been extant since the complaint was filed in 2001, and does not justify sealing the entire file now.
Moreover, the allegations deal with the misconduct of a public official in his capacity as such, which weighs heavily in favor of public access to the record. Finally, the Court does not find that insulating the plaintiff's settlement proceeds from the legal effect of the State Correctional Facility Reimbursement Act (SCFRA), Mich. Comp. L. § 800.401, et seq. is a proper justification for sealing an entire court record.
Of course, the parties are not precluded from entering into a private confidentiality contract with respect to disclosure of the terms of the settlement which, as observed above, has not been placed on the record in this Court. Nor does the Court intend to prevent either party from moving to seal an individual document in the file, provided that the required particularized showing can be made. The parties have not made a case, however, for sealing the entire record in this action.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the joint motion to seal the record and for nondisclosure [dkt # 65] is DENIED.