IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SSM GULF COAST, LLC, )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff,

vs. CIVIL NO. 15-mc-00022-CG-N

DAVID HICKMAN, DAVID’S 

AUTO SHREDDING, INC.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file under 

seal (Doc. 1), Plaintiff’s response in support of the motion (Doc. 6), and Defendants’

opposition to the motion (Doc. 7). For the reasons explained below, the Court finds 

that the motion to seal should be denied.

Court proceedings generally are not confidential, and while a court may order 

confidentiality and seal part of a record for cause, the presumption favors open 

evidence and proceedings. Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 

597-99 (1978). The public has constitutional and common-law rights of access to 

materials filed in a federal lawsuit. See generally Chicago Tribune Co. v. 

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1309 (11th Cir. 2001) (discussing these 

rights and their parameters). “This right of access is not absolute [and] may be 

overcome by a showing of good cause.” Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 

1245 (11th Cir. 2007); accord Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1310. A determination 

of whether good cause has been shown requires a balancing test that has been 

Case 1:15-mc-00022-CG-N Document 8 Filed 09/25/15 Page 1 of 3
2

described as follows:

The common law right of access may be overcome by a showing of 

good cause, which requires “balanc[ing] the asserted right of access 

against the other party's interest in keeping the information 

confidential.” Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1309. “[W]hether good 

cause exists ... is ... decided by the nature and character of the 

information in question.” Id. at 1315. In balancing the public 

interest in accessing court documents against a party's interest in 

keeping the information confidential, courts consider, among other 

factors, 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. 

See In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litig., 820 F.2d 352, 356 (11th 

Cir.1987); Shingara v. Skiles, 420 F.3d 301, 305-06 (3d Cir.2005); 

Amodeo, 71 F.3d at 1050-51.

Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246. The “first question” is whether the sealed materials “do 

in fact contain” confidential information. Chicago Tribune, 263 F .3d at 1313.

In the instant case, SMM Gulf Coast, LLC (“SMM”) seeks to seal its motion to 

vacate an arbitration award in order to comply with a provision of the arbitration 

agreement which requires confidentiality of any award. The arbitration agreement 

was contained in the parties employment agreement and states the following with 

regard to confidentiality:

Except as otherwise required by law or legal process, any and all 

proceedings, hearings, findings or any other record of a dispute under 

this Section 8.16 shall be confidential and shall be held in the strictest 

confidence of all parties so involved, including but not limited to the 

parties to this Agreement and any appointed arbitrators.

(Doc. 2-2). Notably, the clause excepts confidentiality where disclosure is required 

“by law or legal process.” SMM does not point to any harm or injury that could 

Case 1:15-mc-00022-CG-N Document 8 Filed 09/25/15 Page 2 of 3
3

occur if the information was made public and has not suggested any real privacy 

interest it has in the information, other than its expectation that it would remain 

confidential based on the arbitration clause contained in the employment 

agreement. To the extent SMM sought to have it sealed because it did not want to 

violate any privacy interest Defendants had in the information, Defendants have 

made clear by their opposition to the motion that they have no such interest. “The 

existence of a confidentiality provision, without more, does not constitute good 

cause, let alone a compelling reason, to seal.” Bernstein v. Target Stores, Inc., 2013 

WL 5807581, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2013) (citations omitted); see also Brown v. 

Advantage Engineering, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992) (“It is immaterial 

whether the sealing of the record is an integral part of a negotiated settlement 

between the parties, even if the settlement comes with the court's active 

encouragement. Once a matter is brought before a court for resolution, it is no 

longer solely the parties' case, but also the public's case. Absent a showing of 

extraordinary circumstances set forth by the district court in the record consistent 

with Wilson, the court file must remain accessible to the public.”). 

The Court finds that SSM has not identified a compelling reason to justify 

sealing the documents in this court record. Accordingly, the motion of SMM Gulf 

Coast, LLC for leave to file under seal (Doc. 1), is hereby DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of September, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-mc-00022-CG-N Document 8 Filed 09/25/15 Page 3 of 3