White v. UMG Recordings, Inc.

Background

Jordan White moved to file under seal Exhibit A to his motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. White argued that the exhibit should remain sealed because the Recording Industry Association of America, a nonparty, had designated it “CONFIDENTIAL” under the court’s November 10, 2021 protective order.

Applicable Rules

The protective order required a party seeking to file redacted or entire documents under seal to obtain prior court approval under Rule IV.A of Judge Torres’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases. Rule IV.A required the sealing motion to explain the particular reasons for secrecy. It also required any sealing or redaction to be narrowly tailored and consistent with the presumption that judicial documents are publicly accessible. The rule stated that a confidentiality agreement or a party’s consent, standing alone, generally does not overcome that presumption.

The rule further required the party seeking sealing to confer in advance with opposing parties or third parties seeking confidential treatment. When the request was based on another party’s or third party’s demand, the requesting party had to notify that person or entity that it must file a letter explaining the need for sealing within three days.

Ruling

Judge Analisa Torres held that White’s motion did not comply with Rule IV.A. The court therefore denied White’s request to seal Exhibit A. The court ordered White to move by February 1, 2022, for an order sealing or redacting the exhibit in accordance with Rule IV.A. If White did not do so by that date, the Clerk of Court was directed to unseal the document. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion at ECF No. 83.