MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
PAUL
L. FRIEDMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This
matter is before the Court on the motion [Dkt. No. 126] of
proposed intervenor Central Bank of Nigeria
(“CBN”) for leave to file certain documents under
seal. The Court will grant CBN's motion for leave in part
subject to the conditions discussed below.
CBN
seeks to file under seal its motion [Dkt. No. 126-1] for
leave to intervene and accompanying documents, as well as it
opposition [Dkt. No. 126-2] to plaintiff's motion for
writ of attachment and accompanying documents. CBN contends
that these documents contain confidential business
information covered by an existing confidentiality agreement
between the parties, as well as certain financial
information. CBN further notes that the Court granted
plaintiff's earlier motion for leave to file under seal
its motion for writ of attachment. See June 1, 2018
Order [Dkt. No. 122]. Plaintiff does not oppose CBN's
motion for leave to file under seal.
Sealed
court proceedings are inconsistent with “this
country's strong tradition of access to judicial
proceedings.” United States v. Hubbard, 650
F.2d 293, 317 n.89 (D.C. Cir.1980); see Metlife, Inc. v.
Fin. Stability Oversight Council, 865 F.3d 661, 665
(D.C. Cir. 2017). As a general rule, the courts are not
intended to be, nor should they be, secretive places for the
resolution of secret disputes. See United States v. All
Assets Held at Bank Julius Baer & Co., Ltd., 149
F.Supp.3d 69, 70 (D.D.C. 2015) (citing Nixon v. Warner
Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). Public
access to records of judicial proceedings “serves the
important functions of ensuring the integrity of judicial
proceedings in particular and of the law enforcement process
more generally.” See Metlife, Inc. v. Fin.
Stability Oversight Council, 865 F.3d at 665 (quoting
United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d at 314-15).
Accordingly, “[t]he starting point in considering a
motion to seal court records is a strong presumption in favor
of public access to judicial proceedings.” Hardaway
v. D.C. Hous. Auth., 843 F.3d 973, 980 (D.C. Cir. 2016);
see EEOC v. Nat'l Children's Ctr., Inc., 98
F.3d 1406, 1409 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
The
parties seek to file under seal all briefing related to both
plaintiff's motion for writ of attachment and CBN's
motion for leave to intervene. Given the policy in favor of
public access, and the ease with which confidential and
potentially confidential information may be redacted from
documents before they are filed publicly, the Court sees no
reason for all filings in this matter to be sealed in their
entirety simply because they reference confidential
information or financial information. See In re McCormick
& Co., Misc. No. 15-1825, 2017 WL 2560911, at *2
(D.D.C. June 13, 2017); Grynberg v. BP P.L.C., 205
F.Supp.3d 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2016) (explaining that even if
disclosure would violate the terms of the parties'
settlement and confidentiality agreements, such agreements
between private parties “do not dictate whether
documents can be filed under seal”). This case can and
should be open to the public to the greatest extent possible.
The
Court therefore will require the parties to comply with the
conditions specified below for all filings related to
plaintiff's motion for writ of attachment and CBN's
motion for leave to intervene, as well as for all subsequent
filings in this case:
1. All
documents of any nature, including motions and briefs, that
contain confidential material or financial information which
a party proposes to keep under seal, shall be filed with the
Court under seal in an envelope or other container marked
with the title of the action, the title of the court filing
which contains the confidential material or financial
information, and the statement “FILED UNDER SEAL”
below the Court.
2.
Within five business days a party filing such documents with
the Court shall also file on the public record a copy of the
documents in which the confidential material or financial
information is redacted.
3.
Redactions to public copies of documents shall be made solely
to the extent necessary to preserve the confidentiality of
the relevant information and in accordance with the
principles set forth in this Memorandum Opinion and Order.
4.
Alternatively, if - and only if - the redactions are so
extensive as to render any particular document useless to the
reader, the party shall file on the public record a notice of
the filing of the documents under seal in its entirety.
Accordingly,
it is hereby
ORDERED
that the motion [Dkt. No. 126] of proposed intervenor CBN for
leave to file under seal is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part; it is
FURTHER
ORDERED that CBN's motion [Dkt. No. 126-1] for leave to
intervene and accompanying documents, as well as its
opposition [Dkt. No. 126-2] to plaintiff's motion for
writ of attachment and accompanying documents, may be filed
under seal, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to docket
them; it is
FURTHER
ORDERED that within five business days CBN shall file on the
public record a copy of such documents in which the
...