Unopposed Motion to Seal Court Records

In Boblitt v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., 2024 WL 4956749 (M.D. Fl. Dec. 3, 2024), the court denied an unopposed motion to seal court records.  In doing so, it followed a well-worn path.

Plaintiff Boblitt moved for leave to file specific exhibits under seal.  The exhibits supported his opposition to a motion of defendant BP for a protective order.  While it is not clear to me, it appears that the exhibits were primarily expert reports in other litigation. Id. at *1.

The Boblitt court wrote that: “BP does not oppose Mr. Boblitt’s request to file these exhibits under seal….”  BP raised other issues.

It then explained: “The public has a common-law right to access judicial proceedings, including the right to inspect and copy public records and court documents.”

It then added: “The court is aware that the sealing of these exhibits is unopposed. Still, as the primary representative of the public interest in the judicial process, the court is bound by duty to review any request to seal the record (or part of it) and may not rubber stamp requests to seal….  The parties’ mutual agreement to keep documents confidential or to seal materials under a protective order is ‘immaterial’ to a court’s decision regarding the public’s right of access.”  Id. (cleaned up).

The court applied its local rules:

Indeed, the Local Rules make clear that “sealing is not authorized by a confidentiality agreement, a protective order, a designation of confidentiality, or a stipulation.” Local Rule 1.11(a), M.D. Fla. Thus, “the fact that the parties agreed to the material’s confidentiality does not constitute good cause.

Id.

Boblitt was an unforced error.  The principles have long and often been established.  See Three Types of Protective Orders – Requirements to Seal Court Record (Sep. 27, 2024); Sealing of Documents Filed in Court (Mar. 7, 2023); A Request to File a Privilege Log Under Seal Was Denied (Aug. 27, 2024).

Like the Middle District of Florida, the District of Maryland has long had Local Rules 104.13 and 105.11.  The latter states:

Any motion seeking the sealing of pleadings, motions, exhibits, or other documents to be filed in the Court record shall include (a) proposed reasons supported by specific factual representations to justify the sealing and (b) an explanation why alternatives to sealing would not provide sufficient protection. The Court will not rule upon the motion until at least fourteen (14) days after it is entered on the public docket to permit the filing of objections by interested parties. Materials that are the subject of the motion shall remain temporarily sealed pending a ruling by the Court. If the motion is denied, the party making the filing will be given an opportunity to withdraw the materials. Upon termination of the action, sealed materials will be disposed of in accordance with L.R. 113

Another recent decision stated:

The undersigned is cognizant of the well-established Fourth Circuit precedent recognizing a presumption in favor of public access to judicial records. Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2000). As stated in Ashcraft, before sealing a document, the Court must follow a three-step process: (1) provide public notice of the request to seal; (2) consider less drastic alternatives to sealing the document; and (3) provide specific reasons and factual findings supporting its decision to seal the documents and for rejecting alternatives. Id. at 302.

Spurlock v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 2024 WL 4979135 (S.D. W. Va. Dec. 4, 2024).  However, the court considered the procedural posture to be important:  “These exhibits are offered for the purpose of resolving a discovery dispute, rather than for disposition of substantive claims in this action. Accordingly, the Court finds that sealing the four exhibits to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel does not unduly prejudice the public’s right to access court documents.”  Id. at *5.

In Maryland State courts, access to judicial records is governed by Subtitle 9 of Title 16 of the Maryland Rules and by decisions such as Administrative Ofc. Of the Courts v. Abell Foundation, 480 Md. 63, 68-69 (2022).