UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HUGH MACEACHERN,

Plaintiff, CASE NO. 15-CV-12448

v. HONORABLE GEORGE CARAM STEEH

QUICKEN LOANS INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION (Doc. 26)

This employment discrimination action arises out of pro se plaintiff Hugh

MacEachern’s allegations that he was terminated on the basis of his gender, age, and

Caucasian race in violation of Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and

in retaliation for initiating discussions with a union. Plaintiff filed a motion to enjoin

defendants from settling a case pending before the National Labor Relations Board

(“NLRB”) without his consent. Attached to that motion, were an e-mail from the CEO of

Quicken Loans, several documents from the NLRB, and a September 27, 2015 Detroit Free

Press article discussing an NLRB case against defendant Quicken Loans which stemmed

from a complaint filed by plaintiff. Now before the court is defendants’ emergency motion

to file under seal: (1) their response to plaintiff’s motion for an injunction; and (2) their

motion to strike plaintiff’s motion for an injunction and attached exhibits. Defendants seek

to file their response under seal and to strike plaintiff’s motion on the grounds that it

contains unfounded allegations of obstruction of justice.

The court’s inherent power to seal court documents is subject to the “long

established legal tradition” of open access to court documents. Brown & Williamson

-1-

2:15-cv-12448-GCS-SDD Doc # 28 Filed 10/26/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 173
Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1177 (6th Cir. 1983). Court records should be

sealed only in exceptional cases where compelling reasons exist. In re Knoxville NewsSentinel Co., Inc., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983). Defendants argue that compelling

reasons exist because plaintiff’s allegations of criminal obstruction of justice are unfounded

and frivolous. In support of their motion, defendants rely on Tilmon-Jones v. Bridgeport

Music, Inc., No. 11-13002, 2013 WL 3279168 (E.D. Mich. 2013), in which the court ordered

a declaration to remain under seal where the declaration contained accusations of fraud

against defendants and their attorneys, where the witness was outside the subpoena power

of the court, and counsel were unable to respond to the allegations as they were not parties

to the litigation, and the accusations were not relevant to the issues before the court. Id.

at *2. By contrast, in this case, plaintiff lodged his allegations of impropriety against the

named defendants and they will have a full and fair opportunity to respond to any and all

allegations against them. Also, whatever the merit of plaintiff’s allegations, those

accusations form the basis for plaintiff’s motion, and as such, the issue shall be squarely

before the court.

Having found that defendants have failed to show compelling reasons to deviate

from the long-standing tradition of open access to court documents, defendants’ 

-2-

2:15-cv-12448-GCS-SDD Doc # 28 Filed 10/26/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 174
emergency motion (Doc. 26) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2015

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record and

on Hugh Maceachern, 22126 Hayes, Taylor, MI 48180 on

October 26, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk

-3-

2:15-cv-12448-GCS-SDD Doc # 28 Filed 10/26/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 175