State of Minnesota v. Azure
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:23-cv-03321
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In State of Minnesota v. Azure, Magistrate Judge Foster granted in part and denied in part a joint request to keep court documents sealed.
The State of Minnesota, the defendants, and members of the public seeking access to the court records were affected. Two documents were ordered unsealed after 28 days unless further review was timely requested, while seven other listed documents were ordered to remain sealed.
What happened
In State of Minnesota v. Azure, the parties asked the court to continue sealing documents that the State had filed under temporary seal. The parties had settled the case, and the district judge had dismissed it without deciding pending motions.
The court agreed that most of the documents should remain sealed. It found that two documents—a corporate charter and a corporate resolution—lacked sufficient justification for continued sealing, even though a debt collector had marked them confidential and a trade secret.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster granted in part and denied in part the joint motion. She ordered the two documents unsealed after 28 days unless a timely request for further consideration was filed, and ordered the other listed documents to remain sealed.
The detailed version
- State of Minnesota v. Azure · No. 0:23-cv-03321
- Patrick Schiltz
- Apr. 9, 2024
Background
The court considered the parties’ Joint Motion for Continued Sealing. The motion concerned documents that the State had filed under temporary seal in support of its motion for a temporary injunction and in opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The parties had settled the matter, and the district judge had dismissed it without deciding either motion.
The parties agreed that all documents covered by their joint motion should remain sealed. The court largely agreed but identified two exceptions: ECF Nos. 26-6 and 26-7.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that judicial records generally carry a common-law presumption of public access. That presumption is not absolute, but the strength of the presumption depends on the records’ role in the court’s exercise of judicial power and their value to people monitoring the federal courts.
The court found that neither ECF No. 26-6 nor ECF No. 26-7 had played a role in the exercise of the court’s judicial power. Even so, it found no countervailing reason to keep either document sealed.
ECF No. 26-6 is a corporate charter for Fort Belknap Planning and Development Corporation, issued by the Fort Belknap Community Council. The parties relied on a debt collector’s designation of the document as “confidential and trade secret,” but the court found that designation alone insufficient. The court noted that corporate charters are typically public documents and that the record did not show that this charter was uniquely intended to be confidential.
ECF No. 26-7 is a resolution of the Planning and Development Corporation of the Fort Belknap Indian Community adopting Island Mountain Development Group for business transactions under the corporation’s bylaws. The court found that the parties provided no information showing that the resolution was confidential or a trade secret.
Order
The court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ Joint Motion Regarding Continued Sealing.
The Clerk of Court was directed to unseal ECF Nos. 26-6 and 26-7 28 days after the order’s date, unless a timely motion for further consideration was filed under Local Rule 5.6(d)(3).
The Clerk was directed to keep ECF Nos. 26, 26-1, 26-2, 26-3, 26-4, 26-5, and 26-8 under seal.
The order was signed by Dulce J. Foster, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.