Opinion
Civil Action 3:22-CV-2709-X
04-27-2023
MARCUS JARROD PAYNE, Appellant, v. STACY ELEY PAYNE, Appellee.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
BRANTLEY STARR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is appellee Stacy Payne's motion to strike and/or seal appellant Marcus Payne's filings. [Doc. No. 26]. For the reasons below, the Court DENIES the motion.
The Court “heavily disfavor[s] sealing information placed in the judicial record” and discourages such requests. Court proceedings are, by and large, public matters (and rightfully so given that tax dollars fund the courts and we have this wonderful protection called the First Amendment).
June Med. Servs., L.L.C. v. Phillips, 22 F.4th 512, 519-20 (5th Cir. 2022).
“The public's right of access to judicial records is a fundamental element of the rule of law.... Article III courts are independent, and it is particularly because they are independent that the access presumption is so vital-it gives the federal judiciary a measure of accountability, in turn giving the public confidence in the administration of justice.” Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 417 (5th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). “The rationale for public access is even greater” in cases that “involve matters of particularly public interest.” June Med. Servs., 22 F.4th at 520 (cleaned up); see also SEC v. Van Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d 845, 848 (5th Cir. 1993) (“Public access [to judicial records] serves to promote trustworthiness of the judicial process, to curb judicial abuses, and to provide the public with a more complete understanding of the judicial system, including a better perception of its fairness.” (quoting Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 682 (3d Cir. 1998))); Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1177 (6th Cir. 1983) (the First Amendment and the common law limit the court's discretion to seal records).
A party seeking to file a specific document under seal must move for leave to do so and: (1) identify precisely what information (pages, lines, etc.) the party wants sealed; (2) conduct 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) explain why no other viable alternative to sealing exists. Further, all facts recited in any such motion must be verified by the oath or declaration of a person or persons with personal knowledge, which will assist the Court in making fact findings that can withstand appellate scrutiny. Stacy Payne failed to conduct the analysis outlined above. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to strike and/or seal.
Parties should not seek to file under seal any information that is already publicly available. June Med. Servs., 22 F.4th at 520 (“We require information that would normally be private to become public by entering the judicial record. How perverse it would be to say that what was once public must become private-simply because it was placed in the courts that belong to the public. We will abide no such absurdity.” (cleaned up)).
Trans Tool, LLC v. All State Gear Inc., No. SA-19-CV-1304-JKP, 2022 WL 608945, at *6 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2022) (“[I]t is certainly within a court's discretion to summarily deny a request to seal when it is apparent that the submitter has not conducted its own document-by-document, line-by-line review.”).
Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Family Planning & Preventative Health Servs., Inc. v. Kaufman, No. 17-50534, Doc. 00514098372, at 2 (5th Cir. Aug. 1, 2017) (“This court disfavors the sealing of briefs or portions of the record where the parties on appeal have not articulated a legal basis for the sealing.”). The Fifth Circuit has “repeatedly required parties to justify keeping materials under seal.” Id.; see, e.g., Claimant ID 100236236 v. BP Expl. & Prod'n, Inc., No. 16-30521 (5th Cir. Jan. 31, 2017) (requesting letter briefs sua sponte as to whether appeal should remain under seal and entering order unsealing appeal); United States v. Quintanilla, No.16-50677 (5th Cir. Nov. 16, 2016) (order authorizing briefs and record excerpts to be filed under seal on condition that the parties filed redacted briefs and record excerpts on the public docket). Also, the parties should note that a showing that disclosure of the information sought to be sealed would harm a party's reputation or its business is not sufficient to overcome the strong common law presumption in favor of public access. Brown, 710 F.2d at 1179.
See United States v. Edwards, 823 F.2d 111, 119 (5th Cir. 1987) (if closure of a presumptively open proceeding is to withstand a First Amendment challenge, the court must make specific fact findings that substantial probability exists that an interest of a higher value will be prejudiced and that no reasonable alternatives will adequately protect that interest).
IT IS SO ORDERED.