« Ind. Decisions - "Two charities lose in Lilly estate ruling" | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 6 NFP) »
Friday, October 20, 2006
Ind. Decisions - ND Indiana rules on the sealing of documents
Following upon several recent ILB entries on the sealing of court records, including this one from Oct. 17th ("Sealed filings more common before Supreme Court, according to reporter") and this one from August 9th ("Moves toward secrecy in the Indiana trial court system?"), an order of interest was issued this week by U.S. Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein of the N.D. Indiana in the case of Rochester Community School Corp. v. Honeywell, Inc. (available here), setting forth the requisite standards comporting with 7th Circuit precedent [most citations omitted]:
When granting a proposed protective order, this Court must independently determine whether "good cause" exists to seal the requested information from the public record. In doing so, this Court must not grant parties carte blanche to seal or protect whatever they desire. In other words, this Court cannot serve as a rubber stamp whenever parties wish to seal public records, but must review all requests to seal documents in light of the public interest in the judicial process.When reviewing an agreed protective order seeking to seal documents produced in discovery, this Court must ensure that “(1) the information sought to be protected falls within a legitimate category of confidential information, (2) the information or category sought to be protected is properly described or demarcated, (3) the parties know the defining elements of the applicable category of confidentiality and will act in good faith in deciding which information qualifies thereunder, and (4) the protective order explicitly allows any party and any interested member of the public to challenge the sealing of particular documents.” This Court may issue a protective order in this case pursuant to its referral order and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
The parties’ proposed order fails because the order contains no language explicitly allowing interested members of the public to challenge the sealing of particular documents. “The right to intervene to challenge a closure order is rooted in the public's well-established right of access to public proceedings.” Jessup v. Luther, 227 F.3d 993, 997 (7th Cir. 2000). In granting protective orders, judges are thus “the primary representative[s] of the public interest in the judicial process" and must require that a “protective order explicitly allows any party and any interested member of the public to challenge the sealing of particular documents.” The proposed order fails to allow any interested member of the public to challenge the sealing of particular documents.
Because it fails to explicitly express that any interested member of the public may challenge the sealing of particular documents, this Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Defendants’ proposed protective order. [Doc. No. 36]. The Defendants may resubmit their proposed order in light of the standards set forth in this order and the citations herein.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 20, 2006 08:54 AM
Posted to Ind Fed D.Ct. Decisions