Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

Automobile Safety: The Right to Unseal Records

2/2/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Tanner Bowen

Tanner Bowen is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying business.

“It is clear that the courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” [1]  
​

In cases involving sealed and unsealed documents, the Supreme Court has developed a policy in which access to court records should be strongly favored.  Although parties do enter into agreements to seal documents after a district court trial, the party that moves to seal the records thus has a strong burden of proof to show that there is a “compelling reason” to keep access to these records at a minimum.  

To confound issues even more, numerous federal appeals courts have developed different doctrines pertaining to how long documents should be kept sealed or not.  The most recent development in this saga occurred recently, when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on an automobile safety case using the confusing ideology of “dispositive” and “non-dispositive” motions.

The case Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group arose in 2013 after the plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit alleging defects in some of Chrysler’s vehicles.  As part of the discovery process, parties entered into a protective order where certain documents could be designated as “confidential.”  In 2014, Chrysler moved to file certain documents as “confidential” in response to a motion for preliminary injunction on behalf of the plaintiffs. At this point, the Center for Auto Safety (CAS) intervened and filed a motion to unseal these documents, stating that only compelling reasons could keep these documents under seal.

This “compelling reasons” argument originates from a Ninth Circuit opinion (Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu).  However, there is another standard under compelling reasons that the Ninth Circuit can employ in determining whether to unseal court documents.  This is called the “good cause” test, which comes directly from Rule 26(c)(1), which reads: “The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense . . . .” [2].

The district court ruled in favor of Chrysler, stating that the case at hand would have only lead to a “nondispositive” discovery.  In this sense, the meaning of “dispositive” and “nondispositive” simply addresses whether the evidence uncovered from these documents would bring about a “final determination.” [3]  Here, we can read final determination as a summary judgement or the final decision on a case.  

The issue that the Ninth Circuit had with the argument that the evidence uncovered would be nondispositive in nature and thus unnecessary to unseal is that what the Ninth Circuit really meant by this terminology is whether the evidence uncovered is tangentially related to the case.  The simple, binary approach that the district court employs in its decision can be appealing, but the real issue at hand is the general nature of the information, not whether the information can lead to an automatic result for the case.

The terms dispositive and nondispositive are not mechanical classifications, but descriptive terms that indicate which certain test should apply. Sometimes there is a “good reason” to keep the public from accessing certain sealed records that are non-dispositive in nature since these records can be unrelated to the case at hand.  Indeed, this is to protect individuals from those who will try fishing for anything in court records.
But, the true test in this case is whether the court considers the evidence discovered to be related to the case enough. Just because nondispositive motions are sometimes not tangentially related to the merits of a case does not mean that other technically non-dispositive motions (such as routine motions in limine)  are strongly related to the merits of a case.  The same can apply for motions that are technically “dispositive” in nature.

Once you wrap your head around the confusing jargon employed by the Ninth Circuit, the point of all of this legalese is relatively simple: to foster a sense of openness about the judicial system which simultaneously protecting parties involved in litigation.  The simple structure of the judiciary being an independent entity often leaves the public wary about the effectiveness of justice being administered through the courts.  Having an open policy about access to court records helps the public not only understand public events, but also the judicial process.

On the other hand, some individuals will search through pages and pages of useless documents in the hope of finding something malicious or libelous in nature.  That is where a fine line must be drawn in the access to court records.  Our rights to access are established, but privacy and protection are also guaranteed.  That is why the court system has allowed judges to decide the merits of keeping documents sealed on a case-by-case basis. This is why we must constantly search to balance the rights of litigators and inquiring individuals.  


In the end, “applying a strong presumption of access to documents a court has already decided should be shielded from the public would surely undermine, and possibly eviscerate, the broad power of the district court to fashion protective orders” [4].  Thus, the U.S. courts will always be considering these two factors in future cases pertaining to sealed court documents.


[1] Nixon v. Warners Communications Inc., , 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978).
[2] Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26(c)(1).
[3] Black Law’s Dictionary 540 (10th ed. 2014).
[4] Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart
, 467 U.S. 20, 33 (1984).

Photo Credit: Flickr User Daniel Oines

The opinions and views expressed through this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.

0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pheby Liu
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​