UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF

AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ACKERMAN MCQUEEN, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:22-CV-1944-G

)

)

)

)

ORDER

On September 1, 2022, the plaintiff National Rifle Association of America

(“the NRA”) filed this action under seal against the defendants Ackerman McQueen,

Inc. (“Ackerman”) and Mercury Group, Inc. (“Mercury”). See Plaintiff’s Complaint

(docket entry 2). On September 13, 2022, this case was reassigned to the

undersigned. See Electronic Order Reassigning Case (docket entry 8).

On September 13, 2022, the court granted the NRA’s unopposed motion for

leave to file the complaint, confidential settlement agreement (“CSA”), and related

drafts of the CSA under seal. See Order (docket entry 9). On October 18, 2022, the

NRA amended its complaint and added the defendant Anthony Makris (“Makris”). 

Case 3:22-cv-01944-G-BT Document 171 Filed 08/25/23 Page 1 of 7 PageID 5904
See Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (docket entry 15). Makris moves the court

to “vacate the Court’s sealing order signed September 13, 2022 [Doc. 9] . . . .” 

Defendant Anthony Makris’ Motion to Vacate Sealing Order (docket entry 70) at 1. 

The court construes the motion as a motion to unseal this case.

On June 30, 2023, the court ordered the parties to (1) show cause in writing

why this case should remain sealed and further ordered (2) a party seeking to keep a

specific docket entry or document under seal to demonstrate that the extent of

sealing was congruent to the need.1 See Order (docket entry 145); see also id. (“If a

party seeks to keep any motion, response, reply, or brief under seal, the party must

include a proposed public version of the motion, response, reply, or brief with any

and all assertedly confidential information redacted.”).

In response to the court’s show cause order, Ackerman and Mercury “express

no opinion regarding whether the entire case (or any documents or pleadings filed

therein) should be unsealed” but noted that “portions of the CSA (redacted) were

filed by the NRA in a lawsuit in Fairfax County, Virginia . . . against the NRA (Case

No. CL-2019-12530) . . . .” Statement Regarding Sealing (docket entry 158) at 1. 

On the other hand, the NRA requests that the court “maintain the seal over the

entire Record; . . . in the alternative, . . . requests the Court maintain the seal over

1 The record includes the unredacted CSA and pleadings inclusive of

terms of the unredacted CSA.

- 2 -

Case 3:22-cv-01944-G-BT Document 171 Filed 08/25/23 Page 2 of 7 PageID 5905
the entire CSA; . . . in the alternative to that, the NRA respectfully requests the

Court permit [identified] redactions [to 29 docket entries]. . . .” Plaintiff National

Rifle Association of America’s Brief in Response to the Court’s June 30, 2023 Order

Regarding Sealing (docket entry 164) at 25; see also docket entry 165 (appendix in

support). The NRA’s proposed redactions include (1) a redacted version of the CSA

(“proposed redacted CSA”) and (2) redacted versions of 29 pleadings based upon the

redacted CSA (“proposed redacted pleadings”).2 See docket entry 165. 

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit “heavily disfavor[s]

sealing information placed in the judicial record.” June Medical Services., L.L.C. v.

Phillips, 22 F.4th 512, 519-20 (5th Cir. 2022); see also Le v. Exeter Finance Corporation,

990 F.3d 410, 417, 419 (5th Cir. 2021) (“[T]he working presumption is that judicial

records should not be sealed. That must be the default because the opposite would

be unworkable: ‘With automatic sealing, the public may never know a document has

been filed that might be of interest.’”) (citation omitted). To decide whether

something should be sealed, the court “must undertake a case-by-case,

‘document-by-document,’ ‘line-by-line’ balancing of ‘the public’s common law right

of access against the interests favoring nondisclosure.’” Le, 990 F.3d 410 at 419.

2 The NRA provided the court proposed redacted verison of the following

docket entries: 3, 15, 16, 21, 25, 32, 37, 51, 53, 55, 56, 71, 72, 75, 80, 83,

87, 94, 95, 101, 103, 114, 115, 117, 122, 133, 134, 141, and 149. 

- 3 -

Case 3:22-cv-01944-G-BT Document 171 Filed 08/25/23 Page 3 of 7 PageID 5906
Although there is a common law right to access judicial records, “this right is

not absolute.” United States v. Sealed Search Warrants, 868 F.3d 385, 391 (5th Cir.

2017) (citing Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597-99 (1978)). 

“In exercising its discretion to seal judicial records, the court must balance the

public’s common law right of access against the interests favoring nondisclosure.”

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Van Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d 845, 848 (5th Cir.

1993).

After a careful review of the record, the proposed redacted CSA, and the

proposed redacted pleadings, the court has balanced the public’s right of access to

judicial records against a party’s interest in nondisclosure and established public

policy that firmly encourages voluntary settlements. See Liberty Mutual Insurance

Company v. Pine Bluff Sand & Gravel Co., Inc., 89 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 1996); see

also Varsity Gay League LLC v. Nichols, No. 3:22-CV-2711-B, 2023 WL 5284842, at

*2 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2023) (Boyle, J.). The court concludes that while the public

policy promoting settlement generally outweighs the public’s common law right of

access to the judicial record, the court will unseal the case but permit the NRA to file

the proposed redacted CSA, a document already made public,3 and the proposed

3 Upon review, the court finds that the proposed redacted CSA is

substantially similar to a redacted version of the CSA filed by the NRA in Case No.

CL-2019-12530. See June Medical Services, 22 F.4th at 520 (“Publicly available

information cannot be sealed.”).

- 4 -

Case 3:22-cv-01944-G-BT Document 171 Filed 08/25/23 Page 4 of 7 PageID 5907
redacted pleadings in accordance with the proposed redacted CSA as submitted to

the court. Here, the sealings are congruent to the demonstrated needs.4

 See id. at

521. 

The court, therefore, grants in part and denies in part Makris’s motion to

unseal the case and denies the NRA’s requests to maintain the seal over the entire

record and the CSA. The court grants the NRA’s request to permit identified

redactions and accepts the NRA’s proposed redacted CSA and corresponding

proposed redacted pleadings. See docket entry 165. Thus, the court approves the

public filing of the NRA’s proposed redacted version of the CSA and corresponding

29 proposed redacted pleadings. See id.; see also footnote 2 of this order. In addition,

docket entries 164-170, filed subsequent to the NRA’s response to the court’s show

cause order, shall remain under seal pending the court’s review of those pleadings.

4 Should any portions of the redacted CSA become essential to the court’s

disposition of this case at a later time, the court at that time can balance these

interests in determining whether those portions of the CSA should remain sealed.

- 5 -

Case 3:22-cv-01944-G-BT Document 171 Filed 08/25/23 Page 5 of 7 PageID 5908
Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:

1. Makris’s motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Accordingly,

the court’s order dated September 15, 2022 (docket entry 9) is hereby VACATED,

and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to unseal this case. However, the following

docket entries shall remain under seal, and redacted versions of the highlighted docket

entries below shall be made public in accordance with this order. 

Docket entries

3 32 56 83 103 133

15 37 71 87 114 134

16 51 72 94 115 141

21 53 75 95 117 149

25 55 80 101 122 164-

170

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to contact the NRA’s counsel to

coordinate electronic delivery of complete versions of the 29 redacted pleadings

approved by the court. 

3. No later than September 1, 2023, the NRA shall electronically deliver to

the Clerk of Court complete versions of these 29 redacted pleadings in accordance

with the Clerk of Court’s instructions.

- 6 -

Case 3:22-cv-01944-G-BT Document 171 Filed 08/25/23 Page 6 of 7 PageID 5909
4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file the 29 redacted pleadings as of

the date of their receipt.

5. Docket entries 164-170 shall remain under seal pending the court’s review

of those entries in conjunction with its approval of the public filing of the redacted

CSA. No later than September 7, 2023, the parties shall show cause in writing

why docket entries 164-170 should remain sealed. A party seeking to keep a specific

docket entry or document under seal must demonstrate that the extent of sealing is

congruent to the need and include a proposed public version of the motion,

response, reply, brief, or appendix with any and all assertedly confidential

information. Specifically, the party must submit to the court a pleading inclusive of

(1) the enumerated docket entry a party seeks to remain under seal; (2) as to that

enumerated docket entry or document, a line-by-line, page-by-page analysis

explaining and briefing why the risks of disclosure outweigh the public’s right to

know; and (3) as to that enumerated docket entry or document, explains why no

other viable alternative to sealing exists.

6. After the date of this order, a party seeking to file a pleading under seal

must file a motion for leave to file that pleading under seal.

SO ORDERED.

August 25, 2023.

___________________________________

A. JOE FISH

Senior United States District Judge

- 7 -

Case 3:22-cv-01944-G-BT Document 171 Filed 08/25/23 Page 7 of 7 PageID 5910