Smith v. Diaz

Background

The court addressed administrative motions to seal materials filed in support of and opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Because the materials were attached to dispositive motions—motions that could resolve claims—the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard. Under that standard, the party seeking secrecy must identify specific reasons that outweigh the public’s strong interest in access to judicial records. The party must also consider reasonable alternatives, limit the amount sealed, and explain why narrower redactions would not be sufficient.

Defendants’ motion

The defendants sought to seal a memorandum prepared by prison officials as part of a Prison Rape Elimination Act investigation. They argued that disclosure could jeopardize confidential informants and the security of the institution. The court found that this was only a high-level assertion. The defendants did not explain how public disclosure would create those risks or why narrower redactions could not address them. The court also noted that the investigation and report were central to the case. It concluded that the defendants had not shown compelling reasons to seal the memorandum in its entirety.

Smith’s motion

Smith’s motion concerned exhibits filed with Smith’s opposition to summary judgment and references to those exhibits. The defendants had designated the materials “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” during discovery, but the court explained that a confidentiality designation or protective-order provision alone does not establish that materials may be sealed. The defendants also had not filed the declaration required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3).

Smith also appeared to argue that the materials should be sealed because they contained sensitive information about Smith’s correctional records that could threaten Smith’s safety and security if made public. The court found that Smith had not explained how disclosure would create that danger and that the requests were not narrowly tailored to cover only sealable material. Because the documents related to the parties’ summary-judgment arguments and the public’s understanding of the case, the court found no compelling reasons to seal them in their entirety.

Ruling and required next steps

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied the motions to seal, Docket Nos. 110 and 124. The court directed the parties to meet and confer and, within seven days of the order, either file public versions and revised redactions as needed for documents whose proposed sealing was denied or file a new motion to seal.