Reese v. Carmichael

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI ROBERT L. REESE, Derivatively on Behalf : Case No. 1:20-cv-886 of Nominal Defendant FIFTH THIRD BANCORP, : Judge Matthew W. McFarland Plaintiff, a GREG D. CARMICHAEL, et al., Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTION TO SEAL (Doc. 7)

On November 4, 2020, Plaintiff Robert L. Reese brought this shareholder derivative action, on behalf of nominal Defendant Fifth Third Bancorp, against Fifth Third’s Board of Directors. (Doc. 1.) Since portions of the Complaint contain confidential and proprietary information obtained from Fifth Third’s books and records, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Seal (Doc. 2), requesting that the entire 70-page Complaint be filed under seal. While the Court recognized Plaintiff's compelling interest in sealing such information, the Court denied the request because it was not narrowly tailored as required by Sixth Circuit law. (Doc. 6.) See also Shane Group., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016); Kondash v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 767 F. App'x 635, 637 (6th Cir. 2019). In accordance with the Court’s previous Order (Doc. 6), which is incorporated fully here, Plaintiff now seeks to file a redacted version of the Complaint under seal.

(Doc. 7.)! This request is narrowly tailored, as it only seeks to file under seal the redacted confidential and proprietary information, and thus satisfies the requirements set forth by the Sixth Circuit. See Shane Group, 825 F.3d at 305; Kondash, 767 F. App’x at 637. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Seal (Doc. 7) is GRANTED. The filing of Plaintiff’s proposed Redacted Complaint (Doc. 7-1) is permitted and Plaintiff's original Complaint (Doc. 1) shall remain sealed. IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Wet wr Glad By: JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND

Plaintiff has represented to the Court that Defendants do not oppose his request. (Doc. 8.)