Randall v. Greatbanc Trust Company
- Dulce Foster
- 0:22-cv-02354
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Randall v. GreatBanc, Judge Foster granted the parties’ motion to keep specified documents sealed because they contained sensitive financial information.
The parties and the public: the parties’ identified financial and employee stock ownership plan information remains sealed, limiting public access to the listed court filings.
What happened
Randall v. GreatBanc Trust Company involved a joint request to keep documents filed with the defendants’ motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs’ opposition under seal. The parties said the documents contained confidential information about an employee stock ownership plan and nonpublic Wells Fargo financial information.
The court recognized that court records are generally open to the public but said that access is not absolute. After reviewing the documents, it found that they contained sensitive financial information and that the parties’ confidentiality interests outweighed the public interest in making the documents available.
Judge Dulce J. Foster granted the joint motion for continued sealing. The clerk was directed to keep the docket documents listed in the order under seal.
The detailed version
- Randall v. Greatbanc Trust Company · No. 0:22-cv-02354
- Dulce J. Foster
- Sept. 21, 2023
Background
The court considered the parties’ Joint Motion for Continued Sealing. The motion concerned documents filed in connection with the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint and the plaintiffs’ opposition to that motion. The parties asked the court to keep the identified documents sealed because they contained confidential and sensitive information about an employee stock ownership plan, including nonpublic Wells Fargo financial information. They also said that redacting the limited nonconfidential material would be impractical.
Legal standard
The court explained that documents in a civil case may be sealed only as allowed by a statute or rule, or with the court’s permission. Judicial records generally carry a common-law right of public access, but that right is not absolute. The court must balance the public’s interest in access against legitimate interests in keeping information confidential. A designation of documents as confidential under a protective order does not by itself establish that the documents should remain sealed after being filed on the public docket.
Court’s analysis
The court found that the documents could play a role in the district judge’s exercise of judicial power, but it concluded that there was good cause to keep them sealed in this instance. After carefully reviewing them, the court found that each document contained or referenced sensitive and confidential financial information. It determined that the parties’ legitimate confidentiality interests outweighed the public interest in unsealing the documents.
Ruling
Judge Dulce J. Foster granted the Joint Motion for Continued Sealing. The clerk was directed to keep under seal the docket documents listed in the order, including documents associated with ECF Nos. 92, 94, 102, and 104 and their listed attachments.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.