In a big, multi-district case where there are no binding rules, an MDL court actually flipped the presumption of public access to judicial proceedings, and put the burden of proving that things should not be blacked out on the parties objecting to the blackout, i.e., redaction!
What's more, the MDL court apparently did this because so many lawyers agreed that this should be done, that the court not only went along with it, but actually approved it, In re: Automotive Parts Antitrust Lit., MDL No. 12-md-02311, 2017 WL 3499291, at *8 (E.D. Mich. July 10, 2017), appeal dismissed for want of prosecution, No. 17-1967, 2017 WL 5664917 (6th Cir. Sept. 15, 2017):
None of the Objectors specify any particular redactions as problematic or inhibiting them from understanding the claims asserted in this litigation or any other information that might reflect on the fairness of the settlements. Since the Shane Group decision [Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d299 (6th Cir. 2016)], the parties in In re Auto Parts Antitrust Litigation have developed, and the Court has approved, a protocol predicated on complying with the document-sealing standards laid out in Shane Group. See Stip. Order Regarding Sealed Filings, 12-md-2311, ECF No. 1690. Pursuant to the protocol, dozens of previously sealed documents are no longer sealed. The Objectors' sealing argument lacks merit.
Pursuant to this decision, dozens of presumptively public documents are now sealed. Respectfully, the decision lacks merit.
Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2018 by Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.
Comments