West v. City of Minneapolis

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Damarlo West, Civ. No. 21-1280 (DSD/DJF)

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

City of Minneapolis, et al., Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ joint motion (“Motion”) (ECF No. 100) to continue sealing Plaintiff’s memorandum (ECF No. 62) and supporting exhibit (ECF No. 64), and Defendant’s memorandum (ECF No. 79) and supporting exhibits (ECF Nos. 71-76, 78) in relation to Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 61). The parties contemporaneously filed redacted versions or statements that redaction was impracticable for the documents they filed under seal. (ECF Nos. 63, 65, 80, 81.) The parties agree that the documents must remain under seal because they contain information that is part of an ongoing criminal investigation or otherwise protected and confidential under state law. (ECF No 100.) A court will seal documents in a civil case “only as provided by statute or rule, or with leave of court.” L.R. 5.6(a)(1). “There is a common-law right of access to judicial records.” IDT Corp. v. eBay, 709 F.3d 1220, 1222–23 (8th Cir. 2013) (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). Notwithstanding, the right of access is not absolute and requires the court to balance the competing interests of public access against the legitimate interests of maintaining confidentiality of the information sought to be sealed. Id. at 1123. Having carefully reviewed the documents at issue, the Court finds good cause to grant the parties’ Motion. ORDER Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ joint motion for continued sealing (ECF No. [100]) is GRANTED as follows:

1. The Clerk is directed to keep ECF Nos. [62], [64], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], and [78] under seal. Dated: November 28, 2022 s/ Dulce J. Foster DULCE J. FOSTER United States Magistrate Judge