Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_10-cv-00191/USCOURTS-almd-3_10-cv-00191-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

DOLLIE WILLIAMS, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

v. ) CASE NO. 3:10-CV-191-WKW

 ) [WO]

MACON COUNTY GREYHOUND )

PARK, INC., et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

Before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. (Doc.

# 214.) Plaintiffs move the court for leave to file under seal Plaintiffs’ Memorandum

in Support of Their Motion for Class Certification and the accompanying evidentiary

materials in their entirety on the ground that “almost all of the evidentiary material

cited and discussed in the supporting memorandum have been designated

‘Confidential’ by the parties,” pursuant to the Confidentiality and Inadvertent

Disclosure Order. (Doc. # 214, at 1.) 1

“‘The operations of the courts . . . are matters of utmost public concern.’”

Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Landmark

 Consistent with this district’s local rules, documents exchanged during discovery have 1

not been filed with the court. See M.D. Ala. LR 5.1. The disclosure of these documents during

the discovery process, however, has been governed by a consent protective order issued at the

request of the parties. (Doc. # 125.)

Case 3:10-cv-00191-WKW-WC Document 220 Filed 09/04/12 Page 1 of 4
Commc’ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 839 (1978)). “‘[W]hat happens in the

halls of government is presumptively public business. Judges deliberate in private

but issue public decisions after public arguments based on public records.’” Estate

of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc., 184 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1362 (N.D. Ga.

2002) (quoting Union Oil Co. of Calif. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2000)). 

There is a common-law right that favors access to judicial records and includes the

“right to inspect and copy public records and documents.” Chi. Tribune Co. v.

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001). This commonlaw right “is instrumental in securing the integrity of the [judicial] process,” but it is

not absolute. Id. 

“[M]aterial filed with discoverymotionsis not subject to the common-law right

of access.” Id. at 1312. “[T]he need for public access to discovery is low because

discovery is ‘essentially a private process[,] . . . the sole purpose [of which] is to

assist trial preparation.’” Romero, 480 F.3d at 1245 (quoting United States v.

Anderson, 799 F.2d 1438, 1441 (11th Cir. 1986)). In contrast, “material filed in

connection with pretrial motions that require judicial resolution of the merits is

subject to the common-law right.” Chi. Tribune Co., 263 F.3d at 1312-13; see also

Romero, 480 F.3d at 1245 (“Material filed in connection with any substantive pretrial

motion, unrelated to discovery, is subject to the common law right of access.”). That

2

Case 3:10-cv-00191-WKW-WC Document 220 Filed 09/04/12 Page 2 of 4
right, however, “may be overcome by a showing of good cause.” Romero, 480 F.3d

at 1245. This standard parallels the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing protective orders. Chi. Tribune Co., 263

F.3d at 1312. The good cause “standard requires the district court to balance the

party’s interest in obtaining access against the other party’s interest in keeping the

information confidential.” Chi. Tribune Co., 263 F.2d at 1304. For purposes of

conducting this balancing test, factors relevant to the court’s inquiry include:

whether allowing access would impair court functions or harm

legitimate privacy interests, the degree of and likelihood of injury if

made public, the reliability of the information, whether there will be an

opportunity to respond to the information, whether the information

concerns public officials or public concerns, and the availability of a less

onerous alternative to sealing the documents.

Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246. 

Moreover, because the court is obligated to protect the public’s right to access

judicial records, it is not bound by the parties’ stipulation to seal the documentary

record. See In re Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc., 184 F. Supp. 2d at 1363; see

also Romero, 480 F.3d at 1247 (“[T]hat both parties want to seal court documents ‘is

immaterial’ to [the] public right of access.” (quoting Brown v. Advantage Eng’g, Inc.,

960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992)). And even absent a third-party challenge, the

court has an independent obligation to ensure that documents filed under seal do not

3

Case 3:10-cv-00191-WKW-WC Document 220 Filed 09/04/12 Page 3 of 4
impair the public’s right to access the judicial record. See In re Estate of Martin

Luther King, Jr., Inc., 184 F. Supp. 2d at 1363.

Plaintiffs seek a blanket sealing of the brief and all exhibits submitted in

support of their motion for class certification, notwithstanding their concession that

not all of the evidentiary materials were marked “confidential.” Plaintiffs have not

addressed the public’s presumptive right of access to these documents once filed in

connection with a motion for class certification. Plaintiffs also have not addressed

whether the good cause factors weigh in favor of sealing the entirety of the

submission for class certification. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not shown that these

documents should be sealed. It is ORDERED, therefore, that the motion for leave to

file under seal (Doc. # 214) is DENIED.

DONE this 4th day of September, 2012.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Case 3:10-cv-00191-WKW-WC Document 220 Filed 09/04/12 Page 4 of 4