Campbell v. Schroeder
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:24-cv-00913
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Campbell v. Schroeder, Judge Foster granted defendants’ sealing motion, ordering one exhibit unsealed and another partly redacted and unsealed.
The ruling affects the parties, the Clerk of Court, and the public’s access to the exhibits. Exhibit 9 will be unsealed after 28 days unless further consideration is timely requested. Defendants must file a redacted public version of Exhibit 10, while information depicting non-peace officers who have not consented to release remains sealed unless the court orders otherwise.
What happened
Campbell v. Schroeder concerned defendants’ request to keep exhibits attached to their answer sealed. The parties agreed that one exhibit should be unsealed and that the other should remain sealed only where it showed non-peace officers who had not agreed to its release.
Judge Foster applied the rule that court records are generally accessible to the public, while recognizing that legitimate confidentiality interests can justify sealing. After reviewing the exhibits, the court agreed with the parties’ proposed treatment.
Judge Foster granted the motion as follows: Exhibit 9 must be unsealed after 28 days unless a timely request for further consideration is filed, and defendants must publicly file a redacted version of Exhibit 10 within 28 days. Exhibit 10 otherwise remains sealed unless the court orders differently.
The detailed version
- Campbell v. Schroeder · No. 0:24-cv-00913
- Katherine Menendez
- July 16, 2024
Background
The court considered Defendants’ Motion Regarding Continued Sealing of exhibits filed with their answer. The parties agreed that ECF No. 9 should be unsealed. They also agreed that ECF No. 10 should remain sealed only to the extent it depicts individuals who are not peace officers and who have not consented to release.
Legal standard
The court explained that parties may seal documents in a civil case only when authorized by statute or rule, or with the court’s permission. Judicial records generally carry a common-law right of public access, but that right is not absolute. The court must balance public access against legitimate confidentiality interests, considering the role of the material in the exercise of federal judicial power and its value to people monitoring the federal courts.
Ruling
After reviewing the exhibits, the court agreed with the parties. It found that ECF No. 9 should be unsealed. It found that ECF No. 10 should remain sealed only insofar as it depicts individuals who are not peace officers and have not consented to release; it should be unsealed in all other respects.
The court therefore granted Defendants’ motion as follows:
1. The Clerk must unseal ECF No. 9 28 days after the order’s date, unless a timely motion for further consideration is filed under Local Rule 5.6(d)(3). 2. Defendants must publicly file a version of ECF No. 10 with redactions consistent with the order within 28 days. If they do not, the court may order the Clerk to unseal it. Unless the court orders otherwise, ECF No. 10 remains sealed.
The order was signed by Dulce J. Foster, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.