The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Too Often," Requests to Seal Are "Granted Because It Is Easier to Leave Something Sealed Than It Is to Explain Why It Should Be Unsealed"
From Tuesday's decision by Judge Richard Seeborg (N.D. Cal.) in In re: Xyrem (Sodium Oxybate) Antitrust Litigation:
In the course of this complex and hard-fought multidistrict litigation, the parties have moved to seal some component of nearly every motion they filed. Too often, in this case and others, such requests are granted because it is easier to leave something sealed than it is to explain why it should be unsealed. As a result, the records of the federal judiciary are replete with documents that the public cannot access simply because a party designated it confidential.
This order addresses the sealing motions pending on the docket. As explained in more detail below, such motions fail to meet the "compelling reason" standard that generally applies to merits-related materials in courts of the Ninth Circuit. The motions are therefore denied….
Federal courts are public. Their dockets should largely remain publicly accessible except in the relatively narrow instances where parties provide compelling reasons to the contrary. As to the above sealing motions, the parties' submissions to the court are neither compelling nor sufficiently weighty to overcome the presumption of public access. Thus, the motions are denied.
To his credit, Judge Seeborg writes over 5000 words dealing with the details of the attempts to seal many different kinds of filings; read the opinion for more.
