HD Media Co., LLC v. United States DOJ (In re Nat'l Prescription Opiate Litig.) - 927 F.3d 919 (6th Cir. 2019)

Rule:

The party seeking to file under seal must provide a compelling reason to do so and demonstrate that the seal is narrowly tailored to serve that reason. If the district court permits a pleading to be filed under seal or with redactions, it shall be incumbent upon the court to adequately explain why the interests in support of nondisclosure are compelling, why the interests supporting access are less so, and why the seal itself is no broader than necessary. In doing so, the district court is to pay special attention to the statement that only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.

Facts:

Plaintiffs, consisting of about 1,300 public entities including cities, counties, and Native American tribes, sought to recover from defendants, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of prescription opiate drugs, the costs of life-threatening health issues caused by the opioid crisis. Moreover, plaintiffs requested for the production of the data in the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) ARCOS database – an automated, comprehensive drug reporting system monitoring the flow of DEA controlled substances from their point of manufacture to point of sale. Plaintiffs subpoenaed the DEA to produce transactional data for all 50 States and several Territories from its ARCOS database, subject to a protective order which stipulated that the disclosure of the ARCOS data shall remain confidential and shall be used only for litigation purposes. The district court directed the DEA to comply with plaintiffs’ subpoena. In overruling the DEA’s objections to disclosure, the district court found that the DEA had not met its burden of showing good cause for not disclosing the data. The DEA complied with the court’s order and produced the relevant spreadsheets. Once the complete production of the ARCOS data occurred, HD Media Company, LLC (“HDM”) filed a West Virginia Freedom of Information Act request with the Cabell County Commission seeking the ARCOS data that the county received as a Plaintiff in the present litigation, and the Washington Post filed similar public records requests with Summit and Cuyahoga counties in Ohio. The district court granted HDM and the Washington Post limited Intervenor status for the limited purpose of addressing their Public Records Requests. In an Opinion and Order, the district court held that the public records requests must be denied because the requests were barred by the court's Protective Order and Defendants and the DEA had demonstrated "good cause" for the Protective Order's application to such requests, as required under Rule 26(c)(1). HDM and Washington Post appealed the Opinion and Order.

Issue:

Did the district court err in denying the intervenors’ public record requests on the basis of the protective order initially issued by the court?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court held that the District court erred in finding "good cause" for the protective order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) because public interest in solving the opioid crisis outweighed DEA and manufacturers' lesser interests that could be avoided by narrower means. Moreover, the Court averred that the District court erred in allowing court records to be filed under seal or redacted because they were subject to a strong presumption in favor of openness, and no findings or conclusions justifying nondisclosure were made.