United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville
February 19, 2015
DAVID LYKINS; PAMELA CRAIGHEAD; MAURICE BULLARD; and DONNA BURLESON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
FIRST ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION; FIRST ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.; FIRST ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE COMPANY OF TENNESSEE, INC.; and FIRST ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE COMPANY OF GEORGIA, INC.
JULIET GRIFFIN United States Magistrate Judge.
The parties attached to their notice (Docket Entry No. 67) a proposed protective order (Docket Entry No. 67-1), which the Court construes as a joint motion for entry of a protective order, and, as such, it is GRANTED.
By contemporaneously entered order, the parties' proposed protective order is entered, except that the Court has modified § 9 to delete the proposed provision that relieves the filing party from filing a motion to seal in accord with § 5.07 of Administrative Order No. 167.
While the Court is willing to enter a protective order preventing disclosure of information during discovery, there is a heightened standard if a party wants to file material otherwise covered by the protective order under seal. The fact that information is subject to a protective order is not sufficient justification, in and of itself, to make a filing under seal. Rather, the filing party must show that filing under seal is proper under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See also Procter & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust Co., 78 F.3d 219 (6th Cir. 1996); and Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 710 F.2d 1165 (6th Cir. 1983). Specifically, the filing party must "provide an adequate and specific explanation as to why the [filing] should be sealed and apprise the court of the specific harm that will occur if the [filing] is not sealed." United States v. Woods, No. 12-6307 (6th Cir. Apr. 26, 2013); Elliott Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2009 WL 750780, *10 (6th Cir. Mar. 23, 2009) ("strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial proceedings, " citing EEOC v. National Children's Ctr., Inc., 98 F.3d 1406, 1409 (5th Cir. 1996)).
In addition, to the extent feasible, the filing party shall also file a redacted version of the filing proposed to be filed under seal that will be available for public view.
It is so ORDERED.