United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Northern Division
ANNIE ARNOLD, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant.
ORDER
TERRY
F. MOORER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending
before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to
File Under Seal Portions of Memorandum in Support of
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, Appointment
of Class Representatives, and Appointment of Class
Counsel (Doc. 86); Plaintiff's Brief Filed
Pursuant to the Court's May 2, 2019 Order (Doc. 95);
and Defendant's Memorandum In Response to
Plaintiff's Motion to Seal (Doc. 94) . For the
reasons set out below, Plaintiff's motion to seal is
GRANTED as modified by Docs. 94 and 95 and
this Order; Plaintiff's brief is construed as a motion to
re-file Exhibits B and V to Plaintiff's motion for class
certification and is GRANTED;
Defendant's memorandum is construed as a motion to seal
and is GRANTED to the extent set out below.
I.
BACKGROUND
On
April 22, 2019, Plaintiff Annie Arnold (“Arnold”
or “Plaintiff”) filed a Motion for Class
Certification, Appointment of Class Representatives, and
Appointment of Class Counsel and an accompanying
Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification, Appointment of Class Representatives, and
Appointment of Class Counsel. Docs. 87, 88. In tandem
with that, Arnold filed a Motion for Leave to File Under
Seal Portions of Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of Class
Representatives, and Appointment of Class Counsel. Doc.
86. The motion for class certification and accompanying
memorandum were filed under seal pending the Court's
ruling on her motion to seal.
In her
original motion to seal, which was unopposed, Plaintiff
sought to file under seal any exhibits filed in support of
her motion for class certification that were designated by
the defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
(“State Farm” or “Defendant”), as
“Confidential” or would reveal information
designated as confidential under the terms of a Consent Order
adopted and incorporated into the Scheduling Order on October
13, 2017.[1] Docs. 50 and 51. Arnold did not specify
which documents she wished sealed, but she filed under seal
the following exhibits: B, H, T, V, X, Y, Z, AA, BB, CC, and
EE. She also filed her memorandum in support of the motion
for class certification under seal and sought leave to redact
the relevant portions of the memorandum
accordingly.[2]
However,
the consent order merely guards against disclosure of
confidential information exchanged by the parties during
discovery; information produced in discovery is not subject
to the common-law right of access. See Chicago Tribune
Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304,
1311-12 (11th Cir. 2001); Romero v. Drummond Co.,
Inc., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007). The consent
order does not transfer to the parties the Court's
responsibility for protecting the public's right to
access judicial records of substantive proceedings. See,
e.g., Romero, 480 F.3d at 1247. Accordingly, the parties
were directed to confer regarding the exhibits Plaintiff
sought to seal and to file briefs (1) indicating which
materials each party wishes to be sealed and/or redacted from
the motion for class certification and accompanying
memorandum; (2) asserting an argument for sealing each,
addressing the relevant factors; and (3) indicating whether
each request is unopposed. See Doc. 91. Deadlines
for responding to the motion for class certification were
stayed and the relevant documents have been maintained under
seal pending a ruling on the matter. Accordingly, the parties
indicate they have conferred, and each has submitted the
requested brief indicating which documents they seek to file
under seal. Docs. 94, 95.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
“The
operations of courts and the judicial conduct of judges are
matters of utmost public concern.” Landmark
Commc'ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 839, 98
S.Ct. 1535, 1541, 56 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978). “[T]he
common-law right of access to judicial proceedings, an
essential component of our system of justice, is instrumental
in securing the integrity of the process.”
Romero, 480 F.3d at 1245 (quoting Chicago
Tribune Co., 263 F.3d at 1311). “What happens in
the halls of government is presumptively public business.
Judges deliberate in private, but issue public decisions
after public arguments based on public records.”
Union Oil Co. of Ca. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 568
(7th Cir. 2000). The common-law right of access favors access
to judicial records and includes “the right to inspect
and copy public records and documents.” Chicago
Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1311. However, the right is not
absolute. Id. It does not apply to discovery, and
where it does apply, it may be overcome by a showing of good
cause. Romero, 480 F.3d at 1245.
The
good cause standard “requires the district court to
balance the party's interest in obtaining access against
the other party's interest in keeping the information
confidential.” Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d at
1313. When considering that balancing test, the
Romero Court stated as follows:
In balancing the public interest in accessing court documents
against a party's interest in keeping the information
confidential, courts consider, among other factors, whether
allowing access would impair court functions or harm
legitimate privacy interests, the degree of and likelihood of
injury if made public, the reliability of the information,
whether there will be an opportunity to respond to the
information, whether the information concerns public
officials or public concerns, and the availability of a less
onerous alternative to sealing the documents.
Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246. “Discovery material
filed in connection with pretrial motions that require
judicial resolution of the merits is subject to the
common-law right.” Chicago Tribune
Co., 263 F.3d at 1312. The Court should inform its
decision whether to seal a judicial record by a
“‘sensitive appreciation of the circumstances
that led to ... [the] production [of the particular document
in question].'” Chicago Tribune Co., 263
F.3d at 1311 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Comm.,
Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598, 602-02, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 1312,
1314-15, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978)).
“[T]he
judge is the primary representative of the public interest in
the judicial process and is duty-bound therefore to review
any request to seal the record (or part of it). He may not
rubber stamp a stipulation to seal the record.”
Citizens First Nat'l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati
Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 945 (7th Cir. 1999) (citations
omitted). Thus, because the Court is obligated to protect the
public's right to access judicial records, it is not
bound by the parties' stipulation to seal the documentary
record. See, e.g., Romero, 480 F.3d at 1247
(“[T]hat both parties want to seal court documents
‘is immaterial' to the public right of
access.”) (quoting Brown v. Advantage
Eng'g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir.
1992)).
III.
PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF - Exhibits B and V (Doc. 89-2; Docs.
89-22/90-7)[3]
In her
brief, Arnold indicates that she does not seek, herself, to
file any documents under seal. Doc. 95. She stated that she
sought to do so in her previous motion primarily to adhere to
the constrains of the consent order adopted by the Court
(Docs. 50, 51, 53) regarding items designated by State Farm
as “Confidential.” Doc. 95. Thus, Arnold makes no
argument in her brief for placing State Farm's
“Confidential” documents under seal.
Arnold
also indicates, however, that she wishes to refile Exhibits B
and V in order to limit the scope of the documents to only
the portions relevant to the motion for class certification.
She explains that she filed the exhibits-transcripts of her
deposition and the deposition of proposed class
representative Tina Daniel-in their entirety with her motion
for class certification, intending to file them under seal
because they contain references to confidential medical and
financial information. Arnold indicates that the parties have
conferred and have agreed to narrow the scope of materials
they wish to be placed under seal. Consequently, rather than
move to seal Exhibits B and V, Arnold seeks to ...