Student Resource Center v. Eastern Gateway Community College, No. 2:2022cv02653 - Document 8 (S.D. Ohio 2022)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER denying without prejudice 3 Motion to File Document Under Seal. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to immediately serve a copy of this Opinion and Order on Defendant. Any motion to file unredacted versions of the Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction under seal must be filed WITHIN SEVEN DAYS of the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura on 7/5/2022. (daf)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Student Resource Center v. Eastern Gateway Community College Doc. 8 Case: 2:22-cv-02653-ALM-CMV Doc #: 8 Filed: 07/05/22 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 117 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION STUDENT RESOURCE CENTER, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action 2:22-cv-2653 Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura EASTERN GATEWAY COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Complaint, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and Exhibits Under Seal. (“Motion,” ECF No. 3.) In its Motion, Plaintiff proposes to file under seal unredacted versions of its Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, of which Plaintiff has already filed redacted versions on the public docket. (Id.; ECF Nos. 1–2.) For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. There is a strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial records. Stanley v. Turner Oil & Gas Properties, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-386, 2017 WL 5068444, at *1 (S.D. Ohio July 24, 2017). The Sixth Circuit has affirmed that documents filed with the Court may be placed under seal “[o]nly for the most compelling reasons.” Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting In re Knoxville News–Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983)). “A movant’s obligation to provide compelling reasons justifying the seal exists even if the parties themselves agree the filings should be sealed.” White v. Dockets.Justia.com Case: 2:22-cv-02653-ALM-CMV Doc #: 8 Filed: 07/05/22 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 118 Wilberforce Univ., No. 1:16-CV-1165, 2017 WL 3537233, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 17, 2017) (emphasis in original) (citing Rudd Equip. Co., Inc. v. John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co., 834 F.3d 589, 595 (6th Cir. 2016)). The proponent of sealing therefore must “analyze in detail, document by document, the propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.” Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 305 (quoting Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 548 (7th Cir. 2002)). These reasons and legal citations must be sufficient for a district court to “set forth specific findings and conclusions which justify nondisclosure to the public.” Rudd Equip. Co., Inc., 834 F.3d at 594. Here, Plaintiff’s Motion fails to meet the high standard set forth by the Sixth Circuit. Plaintiff fails to set forth compelling reasons justifying the sealing of documents, asserting only that the documents in question may fall under the confidentiality provision of a Collaboration Agreement between the parties. The parties’ agreement to maintain confidentiality, standing alone, does not constitute a compelling reason for filing under seal. See Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1180 (6th Cir. 1983) (holding that a “confidentiality agreement between the parties does not bind the court in any way”); White, 2017 WL 3537233, at *2 (finding the parties’ joint motion to file under seal woefully inadequate where they merely asserted that they decided to keep the terms of their settlement confidential); In re Black Diamond Mining Co., LLC, No. 15-96, 2016 WL 4433356, at *3 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 18, 2016) (explaining that the existence of a confidentiality agreement, alone, is not a compelling reason to seal a record). Thus, even when the parties have agreed among themselves to keep the documents confidential, the moving party must provide compelling reasons justifying the sealing of those documents. 2 Case: 2:22-cv-02653-ALM-CMV Doc #: 8 Filed: 07/05/22 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 119 For the above-stated reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 3) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If either party desires that Plaintiff file its Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction under seal, the proponent of the seal must file a properly supported motion that demonstrates good cause for filing under seal. The parties are cautioned that any forthcoming motions regarding filing documents under seal should be narrowly tailored, as the sealing of documents must be no broader than necessary. See Shane Group, Inc., 825 F.3d at 305. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to immediately serve a copy of this Opinion and Order on Defendant. Any motion to file unredacted versions of the Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction under seal must be filed WITHIN SEVEN DAYS of the date of this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Chelsey M. Vascura CHELSEY M. VASCURA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3
]]>
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.
