Nagel v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 653

Background

The court considered the parties’ joint motions about whether documents previously filed under seal should continue to be kept from public view. The filings included documents associated with the case’s class-certification proceedings and other court submissions. The parties agreed that some documents should be unsealed and that other documents should remain sealed. They disagreed about Docket Entries 137-1 and 137-32.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records generally carry a common-law presumption of public access. That right is not absolute, so the court must balance the public’s interest in access against the interests supporting confidentiality. A protective-order designation alone does not justify keeping a court filing sealed indefinitely. The court also noted that the presumption of access is heightened in class actions because members of the public are involved. It applied the six-factor balancing approach used by courts in the District of Minnesota, including the need for public access, prior public access, objections to disclosure, privacy and property interests, possible prejudice, and the purpose for which the documents were filed.

Disputed documents

For Docket Entry 137-1, the plaintiff argued that the audio recordings were not designated confidential, that two other membership-meeting audio files had been filed publicly, and that the meetings were open generally to union members. The defendant argued that the recordings contained confidential internal union information, including collective-bargaining strategies, organizing campaigns, and internal governance matters. The court found that the recordings were not designated confidential, that the defendant did not dispute the public filing of two similar recordings, that the meeting was generally open to union members, and that the recording had been filed with a class-certification motion. The court concluded that the defendant had not provided compelling reasons to overcome public access and ordered Docket Entry 137-1 unsealed.

For Docket Entry 137-32, the plaintiff argued that the document had been mailed to all pension members and that the defendant had no expectation of confidentiality. The defendant argued that it contained confidential collective-bargaining strategy and proposal-formulation information. The defendant did not dispute that the letter had been disclosed to pension members, and the letter did not instruct recipients not to share it or its contents. The court therefore found the letter not confidential and ordered Docket Entry 137-32 unsealed.

Order

The court granted the parties’ Joint Motions Regarding Continuing Sealing. It ordered these docket entries unsealed: 125-2, 125-4, 125-5, 125-13, 125-26, 125-27, 125-29, 125-33, 125-38, 137-1, 137-32, 137-49, 150, 150-1, 150-2, 150-3, 150-4, 150-5, and 150-6.

It ordered the other listed docket entries to remain sealed, including documents containing confidential financial information, information previously found confidential and sensitive concerning the defendant’s collective-bargaining strategies and proposal formulation, or personal and confidential information of union members. The parties were also ordered to file a joint motion about continuing sealing for the exhibits listed under Docket Entry 126 by October 30, 2020.