Hodges v. Chatham County, Georgia

• Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
• Decided: March 16, 2023
• Docket: 4:22-cv-00067
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION JESSICA HODGES, as natural ) guardian of minor children, L.C. ) and D.C, and ESTATE ) OF LEE MICHAEL CREELY, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CV422-067 ) CHATHAM COUNTY, GEORGIA, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER Currently before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal, doc. 89, and Defendant CorrectHealth’s Motion to File Under Seal, doc. 93. Both Motions to Seal are unopposed. See generally docket; see also S.D. Ga. L. Civ. R. 7.5 (“Failure to respond within [fourteen days] shall indicate that there is no opposition to a motion.”). The Eleventh Circuit has explained that “[t]he operations of the courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost public concern and the common-law right of access to judicial proceedings, an essential component of our system of justice, is instrumental in securing the integrity of the process.” Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Landmark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 839 (1978), and Chi.

Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001)). “[T]he common-law right of access includes the right to inspect

and copy public records and documents.” Chi. Tribune Co., 263 F.3d at 1311 (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (referencing specifically the right to inspect and copy “judicial records

and documents.”)). “A motion that is presented to the court to invoke its powers or affect its decisions, whether or not characterized as dispositive, is subject to the public right of access.” Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Eleventh Circuit recently reaffirmed that the public right of access is presumed for “judicial records,” which include “documents filed

with pretrial motions that require judicial resolution of the merits of an action.” Callahan v. United Network for Organ Sharing, 17 F.4th 1356, 1363 (11th Cir. 2021) (internal citation and quotations omitted); see also

id. (“What matters is how the document was used by the parties—to support an argument before the court—and not whether the court itself used the document to resolve that argument.”). A party seeking to seal judicial records can overcome the common- law right of access by a showing of good cause. Callahan, 17 F.4th at

1363. A good cause determination “requires balancing the asserted right of access against the other party's interest in keeping the information

confidential.” Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted) (quoting Chi. Tribune Co., 263 F.3d at 1309). In weighing these competing interests, the Court considers “a number of

important questions,” which the Eleventh Circuit discussed in Callahan: [W]hether allowing access would impair court functions or harm legitimate privacy interests, the degree of and likelihood of injury if made public, the reliability of the information, whether there will be an opportunity to respond to the information, whether the information concerns public officials or public concerns, and the availability of a less onerous alternative to sealing the documents. Concerns about trade secrets or other proprietary information, for example, can overcome the public interest in access to judicial documents. Indeed, a court should consider whether the records are sought for such illegitimate purposes as to promote public scandal or gain unfair commercial advantage. Callahan, 17 F.4th at 1363 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The decision of whether good cause exists rests with the sound discretion of the district court, is based on the “nature and character of the information in question,” and “should be informed by a sensitive appreciation of the circumstances that led to the production of the particular document in question.” Chi. Tribune Co., 263 F.3d at 1311 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 603) (internal quotation marks and

alterations omitted), 1315. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal seeks leave to file under seal “Exhibit 2 to

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and Memorandum in Support to Defendants Chatham County, Georgia, Don White and Karlos Manning.” Doc. 89 at 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel explains that Exhibit 2 contains “12

reports by independent monitors” which are being provided to the Court for an in camera inspection. Doc. 88 at 2, n. 4. Review of the Motion to Compel shows that at least a portion of the parties’ discovery dispute

centers on whether the reports are privileged. See, e.g., doc. 88 at 9. Pending a determination on that issue, good cause exists to maintain Exhibit 2 under seal. Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal is, therefore, GRANTED.

Doc. 89. The Clerk is DIRECTED to file Exhibit 2 to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, doc. 88, UNDER SEAL and maintain that exhibit under seal until further Order of this Court.

Defendant CorrectHealth seeks leave to file a redacted version of the Declaration of Stacy Scott, Esq., as Exhibit A to its Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, “in order to protect the confidentiality of the information until such time as the Court has ruled on the discoverability of the information.” Doc. 98 at 1. It asserts that “[t]he only portions of the Declaration that are redacted are those that include information that CorrectHealth is contending is privileged.” Jd. Pending a determination

on the relevant Motion to Compel, CorrectHealth has demonstrated the requisite good cause to maintain the unredacted version of the Declaration under seal. Therefore, its Motion to Seal is GRANTED. Doc. 93. The Clerk is DIRECTED to maintain the unredacted version of Exhibit A to Defendant CorrectHealth’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel UNDER SEAL until further Order of this Court. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to re-docket doc. 93-1, the redacted version of the Declaration, as Exhibit A to CorrectHealth’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, doc. 92. SO ORDERED this 16th day of March, 2023. Latglond les CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA