Blankenship v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

Valerie S Blankenship, Administrator of the Estate of Diana L. Hatt, Deceased,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:19-cv-38 Judge Thomas M. Rose

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.,

Defendant.

ENTRY AND ORDER STRIKING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. (ECF 21).

Pending before the Court is the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order. ECF 21. Therein the parties seek permission to file under seal documents that they believe are confidential. Because the Court cannot abdicate its control of its own docket to the parties, including control of what is filed under seal and what is not, the Court ORDERS the Clerk to STRIKE the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order. ECF 21. “The public has a strong interest in obtaining the information contained in the court record.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1180 (6th Cir. 1983). A district court that chooses to seal court records must set forth specific findings and conclusions which justify nondisclosure to the public. Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, No. 15-1544, 2016 WL 3163073, at *4 (6th Cir. June 7, 2016) (citing Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1176. That is true even if neither party objects to the motion to seal. Id. A court's obligation to explain the basis for sealing court records is independent of whether anyone objects to it. Id. A court's failure to set forth those reasons…is itself grounds to vacate an order to seal. Id. See also Procter & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust Co., 78 F.3d 219, 227 (6th Cir. 1996) (opinion of Merritt, J.) and 229 n.1 (Brown, J., dissenting). The parties’ protective order, ECF 21, ¶ 14, does not meet this requirement.

DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Thursday, September 12, 2019.

s/Thomas M. Rose ________________________________ THOMAS M. ROSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2