Javaras v. KW#1 Acquisition Company, L.L.C., No. 1:2012cv01669 - Document 15 (N.D. Ohio 2012)

Court Description: Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 11/7/12 denying the parties' proposed confidentiality order. The movants may move to seal individual documents provided that they make the requisite particularized showing. (Related Doc. 11 ) (M,G)

Download PDF
Javaras v. KW#1 Acquisition Company, L.L.C. Doc. 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ------------------------------------------------------: GREG JAVARAS : : Plaintiff, : : vs. : : KW#1 ACQUISITION CO., LLC, : dba METRO-LEXUS : : Defendant. : : ------------------------------------------------------- CASE NO. 1:12-CV-1699 OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. No. 11] JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: The parties in this employment case jointly propose a protective order allowing them to limit public disclosure of information they designate as confidential. [Doc. 11] Granting a protective order motion is within the trial court’s discretion, but that discretion “‘is circumscribed by a longestablished legal tradition’ which values public access to court proceedings.” Procter & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust Co., 78 F.3d 219, 227 (6th Cir. 1996) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 710 F.2d 1165, 1177 (6th Cir. 1983)). Unwarranted restriction of court documents hampers the public’s ability to act as an important check on judicial integrity. See Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1179; see also Wilson v. Am. Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568, 1570 (11th Cir. 1985) (observing that “trials are public proceedings” and that access to court records preserves “the rights of the public, an absent third party”). Thus, in the Sixth Circuit, courts approach protective order motions with a presumption in favor of public access to judicial records. See, e.g., In re Perrigo Co., 128 F.3d 430, 447 (6th Cir. 1997) (Moore, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The fact that all parties jointly seek a protective order does not overcome this presumption. -1- Dockets.Justia.com Case No. 1:12-CV-1669 Gwin, J. See Proctor & Gamble Co., 78 F.3d at 227 (warning district courts against “abdicat[ing their] responsibility to oversee the discovery process and to determine whether filings should be made available to the public” and against “turn[ing] this function over to the parties,” which would be “a violation not only of Rule 26(c) but of the principles so painstakingly discussed in Brown & Williamson”). A successful protective order motion must show specifically that disclosure of particular information would cause serious competitive or financial harm. See, e.g., Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1179-80. Here, the movants completely fail to meet this standard. The proposed confidentiality agreement is exceedingly broad and unspecific. The movants ask for blanket authority to designate documents as confidential that they mark as “CONFIDENTIAL.” [Doc. 11.] However, they have failed to show that public disclosure of any information might cause serious harm or is otherwise warranted. The movants may move to seal individual documents provided that they make the requisite particularized showing. For example, upon a proper motion, the Court will consider limiting public disclosure of information that would constitute a trade secret, medical records, or that is otherwise highly sensitive. However, the Court will not simply grant the parties blanket authorization to cloak the entire case under a veil. The Court thus DENIES the proposed confidentiality agreement. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 7, 2012 s/ James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.