Kinney v. Atlanticus Services Corporation

Background

The parties filed a joint motion asking the court to continue sealing documents connected to Atlanticus Services Corporation’s motion for summary judgment. The sealed materials included the motion and memoranda, an affidavit and exhibits, a declaration and exhibits, a meet-and-confer statement, Mark Kinney’s response and supporting declaration, and exhibits. The parties asserted that the documents contained confidential business or client communications, employment information covered by nondisclosure agreements, settlement communications, or information covered by a protective order. They also stated that redaction was impractical.

The opinion notes that Judge Donovan Frank had previously granted in part and denied in part Atlanticus Services Corporation’s underlying motion for summary judgment on March 18, 2025. This order addresses only continued sealing of documents.

Legal standard

Court documents are generally subject to a common-law right of public access. Because the documents here were connected to a dispositive motion—a motion that could resolve claims—and to the court’s decision-making authority, the court applied a strong presumption of public access. The parties therefore had to provide compelling reasons for keeping the documents sealed. Confidentiality interests had to be balanced against the public’s interest in understanding the court’s ruling and monitoring the federal courts.

Rulings on Atlanticus Services Corporation’s documents

The court ordered the Clerk of Court to keep sealed the meet-and-confer statement at ECF No. 28 because it contained statements that might be confidential settlement communications under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 408. The court also kept sealed Atlanticus Services Corporation’s declaration and four exhibits at ECF Nos. 40 and 40-1 through 40-4 because they contained references to and evidence of confidential communications covered by nondisclosure agreements.

The court ordered the proposed order at ECF No. 29 unsealed. It found that the parties had not shown compelling reasons to keep Atlanticus Services Corporation’s motion for summary judgment, supporting and reply memoranda, or affidavit and thirty-four attached exhibits entirely sealed. The court stated that the motion did not contain information beyond the publicly filed complaint, that the public needed access to the memoranda to understand the grounds for the summary-judgment motion, and that attaching many exhibits did not justify avoiding redaction.

The court ordered Atlanticus Services Corporation to make a good-faith effort to redact the documents, hiding only information it could sincerely argue was confidential or proprietary. By June 13, 2025, it had to file redacted versions of the specified documents or detailed statements explaining why all or substantially all of a particular document should remain confidential. If it failed to do so, the court stated that it would order the Clerk’s Office to unseal the documents within 21 days under Local Rule 5.6(f).

Rulings on Mark Kinney’s documents

The court also found that permanent sealing of Mark Kinney’s responsive memorandum, declaration, and thirteen exhibits was not justified at that time. A party’s designation of information as confidential during discovery did not by itself establish that the information should remain sealed on the public court docket. The court also noted that Mark Kinney appeared not to have attempted redaction.

The court ordered Mark Kinney to make a good-faith effort to redact his responsive memorandum, declaration, and thirteen exhibits, hiding only information he could sincerely argue was confidential or proprietary. If the asserted proprietary interest belonged to Atlanticus Services Corporation, Mark Kinney had to meet and confer with Atlanticus Services Corporation, which had to assist in identifying specific portions it believed should be redacted. Mark Kinney also had to file the thirteen supporting documents separately rather than as one combined filing.

By June 13, 2025, Mark Kinney had to file redacted versions or detailed statements explaining why all or substantially all of any document should remain confidential. If he failed to do so, the court stated that it would order the Clerk’s Office to unseal the documents at ECF Nos. 32, 33, and 33-1 within 21 days under Local Rule 5.6(f).

Final disposition

Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster granted in part and denied in part the parties’ Joint Motion Regarding Continued Sealing. The Clerk was directed to keep ECF Nos. 28, 40, and 40-1 through 40-4 under seal and to unseal ECF No. 29. The parties were ordered to file redacted versions or detailed confidentiality statements for the remaining documents by June 13, 2025, and to file a revised joint motion addressing each document. Mark Kinney was separately ordered to refile the thirteen exhibits individually by that date.