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

Background

The court considered the parties’ joint motions regarding continued sealing under District of Minnesota Local Rule 5.6(d). The sealed materials had been filed in connection with the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and motion to exclude expert testimony.

The parties agreed that specified docket entries should be unsealed. They also agreed that many other entries should remain sealed because they contained information that the court had previously found confidential and sensitive, including the defendant’s collective bargaining strategies and proposal formulation, as well as personal and confidential information concerning union members and union membership. The parties agreed that Docket Entries 194-2 and 194-4 should remain sealed but that redacted versions should be publicly filed.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records generally carry a common-law right of public access, meaning the public ordinarily may inspect and copy records filed with the court. That right is not absolute. The court must balance the public’s interest in access against legitimate confidentiality, privacy, property, and potential-prejudice interests.

The court also discussed a six-factor balancing test addressing the need for public access, prior public access, objections to disclosure, asserted property and privacy interests, possible prejudice from disclosure, and the purpose for which the documents were submitted. Documents filed in connection with summary judgment generally receive a strong presumption of public access because they may help resolve the merits of a case.

Docket Entry 195-34

The parties disagreed about whether Docket Entry 195-34 should remain sealed. The defendant argued that the document contained confidential information about collective bargaining strategies and proposal formulation. The plaintiffs argued that it was a nonconfidential communication between the defendant and a nonparty and that the defendant therefore had no reasonable expectation of confidentiality.

The court described Docket Entry 195-34 as a draft communication apparently intended for distribution to a large number of union members to obtain volunteers for a negotiation committee. The court noted that it was unclear whether the final communication had been materially changed and that the draft contained no statement warning that its contents were confidential. Because the defendant relied on the document in support of summary judgment, the court concluded that the defendant had not met its burden to show why it should continue to be sealed.

Ruling

Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright ordered that the parties’ joint motions regarding continued sealing were GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The court ordered the specified docket entries, including Docket Entries 195-34, 195-64, and 195-65, to be unsealed in accordance with the local rules. It ordered the other listed entries to remain sealed. It also ordered the parties to publicly file redacted versions of Docket Entries 194-2 and 194-4 within fourteen days. This order addressed access to court records and did not decide the underlying claims or the pending summary-judgment and expert-testimony motions.