In Regional Local U. Nos. 846 & 847 v. Mile High Rodbusters, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00673-SKC, 2020 WL 1865168 (D. Colo. April 14, 2020) (Crews, USMJ), yet again a U.S. Magistrate Judge confronted yet another motion to seal. This case was brought to enforce a judgment in a previous case. The judgment had been entered in favor of the plaintiffs on their complaints that the defendant employers violated a collective bargaining agreement. The plaintiffs including unions filed a one-paragraph motion to seal their complaint.
But the result in this case was to allow public access and to refuse the plaintiffs' motion to restrict access to their complaint in this case. The USMJ began by publishing the standards adopted by Local Rule in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado where this action was brought.
This is a procedural rule approved by the district judges and magistrate judges themselves. It may be easier for all judges to begin by following rules which they themselves have written, particularly when it comes to the subject of restricting public access to public documents, i.e., sealing them.
For whatever reason, the USMJ began by looking at the Local Rule on restricting access in this case:
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2, motions to restrict must address the following factors:
(1) identify the document or the proceeding for which restriction is sought;
(2) address the interest to be protected and why such interest outweighs the presumption of public access (stipulations between the parties or stipulated protective orders with regard to discovery, alone, are insufficient to justify restriction);
(3) identify a clearly defined and serious injury that would result if access is not restricted;
(4) explain why no alternative to restriction is practicable or why only restriction will adequately protect the interest in question (e.g., redaction, summarization, restricted access to exhibits or portions of exhibits); and
(5) identify the restriction level sought.
D.C. Colo. Local Civil Rule 7.2(c).
http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/
Documents/LocalRules/
2019_Final_Local_Rules.pdf
[Local Civil Rule 7.2 is located on pages 18-19 of the hyperlinked pdf on the District of Colorado's website.]
Regional Local Union, 2020 WL 1865168, at *1. Here, the plaintiffs requested in one paragraph that their complaint be sealed from public view. They represented that "some allegations" in their complaint "derived from" documents in their earlier case which was apparently filed in 2013 and in which a protective order had been entered.
This request just did not comply with Local Civil Rule 7.2 in the eyes of this United States Magistrate Judge. More than that, the USMJ compared this request to the Local Rule and concluded, concisely, that the plaintiffs did not even attempt to satisfy the requirements of the Local Rule.
As to the Constitutional presumption of public access, the Court again held the plaintiffs to the prevailing standard in such a case as this. In order to seal pleadings and other documents the plaintiffs requesting the seal in this case have to demonstrate "'real and substantial interest'" in depriving the public of access to records "'that inform [the court’s] decision-making process'[.]" Regional Local Union, 2020 WL 1865168, at *2 (emphasis by the Court).
"This is especially true where, as here, a party wants to restrict access to a document that is at 'the heart of the issues' in the litigation, i.e., the Complaint itself." Regional Local Union, 2020 WL 1865168, at *2.
The Constitutionally required standard to restrict public access to public documents was not met here.
To sum up, the procedural requirements for restricting public access were not met here, and more importantly, neither were the Constitutionally required standards met here. Result: Motion Denied.
Please read the disclaimer. ©2020 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
Comments