UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

SPENCER NEAL, 

 Case No. 2:18-cv-958

Plaintiff, JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

 Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

v.

DIVYA JYOTI LTD., 

Defendant.

ORDER

The matter before the Court is Plaintiff Spencer Neal’s Motion for Leave to File Under 

Seal (ECF No. 49). For the reasons that follow, the motion (ECF No. 49) is DENIED. 

A district court may enter a protective order during discovery on a mere showing of “good 

cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). “[V]ery different considerations apply” when a party seeks to 

seal documents “[a]t the adjudication stage,” which applies “when the parties place material in the 

court record.” Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 

2016) (quotation omitted). “Unlike information merely exchanged between the parties, ‘[t]he 

public has a strong interest in obtaining the information contained in the court record.’” Id.

(quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1180 (6th Cir. 1983)). For 

this reason, the moving party has a “heavy” burden of overcoming a “‘strong presumption in favor 

of openness’ as to court records.” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305 (quoting Brown & Williamson, 710 

F.2d at 1179); see also Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305 (“Only the most compelling reasons can justify 

non-disclosure of judicial records.” (quotation omitted)). “[T]he seal itself must be narrowly 

tailored to serve that reason,” which requires the moving party to “analyze in detail, document by 

document, the propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d 
at 305–06 (quotation omitted). Similarly, the court “that chooses to seal court records must set 

forth specific findings and conclusions which justify nondisclosure.” Id. at 306 (quotation 

omitted).

Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement in which he asserts the 

parties executed a settlement agreement on January 29, 2020. (ECF No. 48.) Plaintiff maintains 

that Defendant has failed to comply with the agreement by failing to pay sums, as agreed. (Id.) In 

support of this motion, Plaintiff seeks to file the parties’ settlement agreement under seal. (ECF 

No. 49.) Plaintiff contends the settlement agreement is confidential. (Id.)

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file under seal falls short of the standards established by the 

Sixth Circuit. As this Court has stated previously, “[t]he parties’ preference to keep their 

agreement confidential is insufficient to warrant a seal.” White v. Wilberforce Univ., No. 1:16-cv1165, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131143, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 17, 2017). Plaintiff has not 

demonstrated a compelling reason for requesting a seal or set forth any information from which 

the Court could make specific findings and conclusions justifying non-disclosure to the public. 

Plaintiff will need to file the settlement agreement in the public record for the Court to consider 

the motion to enforce the agreement.

Accordingly, the motion to seal (ECF No. 49) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4/13/2020 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.

DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE