Doe 1 v. McAleenan

Background

The plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to seal portions of the parties’ joint discovery letter brief concerning the de-designation of discovery materials. The defendants filed a response. The underlying dispute concerned whether defendants should reproduce certain documents with a lower confidentiality designation; it did not address the merits of the parties’ claims or defenses.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records connected to dispositive motions generally receive a strong presumption of public access, which can be overcome only by compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings. But that presumption is less demanding for motions only tangentially related to the merits. For such matters, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) requires a showing of good cause to seal documents or information.

Ruling

The court applied the good-cause standard because the discovery dispute was not about the merits of the case. The passages sought to be sealed concerned materials defendants had designated “Highly Confidential/Attorneys’ Eyes Only” or “Confidential,” based on law-enforcement privilege and possible national-security implications. Because the court had not yet resolved the underlying discovery dispute, it granted the plaintiffs’ administrative motion and permitted sealing of the specified portions of the joint discovery letter brief, including identified lines and footnotes on pages 4 through 14.

Effect

The order resolved only the request to seal the listed portions of the discovery letter brief. It did not resolve the underlying dispute about the confidentiality designations or the parties’ claims and defenses.