West v. City of Minneapolis
- David Doty
- 0:21-cv-01280
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In West v. City of Minneapolis, Judge Foster granted the parties’ joint motion to keep specified filings sealed because they contained protected confidential information.
The parties’ sealed filings and exhibits, and members of the public seeking access to those judicial records.
What happened
In West v. City of Minneapolis, the parties jointly asked the court to continue sealing filings and exhibits connected to the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. They said the materials included information from an ongoing criminal investigation or information protected and confidential under state law.
The court explained that judicial records are generally open to the public, but access is not absolute. After reviewing the documents, the court found good cause to continue sealing them.
Judge Dulce J. Foster granted the joint motion and directed the clerk to keep ECF Nos. 62, 64, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, and 78 under seal.
The detailed version
- West v. City of Minneapolis · No. 0:21-cv-01280
- David Doty
- Nov. 28, 2022
Background
The parties filed a joint motion to continue sealing the plaintiff’s memorandum and supporting exhibit, along with the defendant’s memorandum and supporting exhibits, concerning the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. The parties also filed redacted versions or statements that redaction was impracticable.
The parties agreed that the documents should remain sealed because they contained information that was part of an ongoing criminal investigation or was otherwise protected and confidential under state law.
Legal standard
The court noted that civil-case documents may be sealed only as allowed by a statute or rule, or with the court’s permission. It also explained that judicial records carry a common-law right of public access. That right is not absolute, however, and the court must balance public access against legitimate confidentiality interests.
Ruling
After reviewing the documents, the court found good cause to grant the parties’ motion. The court granted the joint motion for continued sealing and directed the clerk to keep ECF Nos. 62, 64, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, and 78 under seal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.