West v. City of Minneapolis
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
West v. City of Minneapolis
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Damarlo West, Case No. 21-cv-1280 (DSD/DJF)
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
City of Minneapolis, et al.,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Seal (“Sealing Motion”) (ECF
No. 150) filed in connection with Plaintiff’s Daubert Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony (“Daubert
Motion”) (ECF No. 115) and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“Summary Judgment
Motion”) (ECF No. 117). Plaintiff filed two exhibits in support of its Daubert Motion under seal
(ECF No. 125, Exhibit 8; ECF No. 126, Exhibit 9) and stated that redaction was impracticable (ECF
No. 130). Defendants filed several exhibits in support of their Summary Judgment Motion
conventionally and under seal. (See ECF No. 137, Exhibit 2; ECF No. 138, Exhibits 4-8.)
Defendants filed placeholders for each of those Exhibits under seal (ECF Nos. 137, 138), along with
a statement that redaction was impracticable (ECF No. 139). Defendants later filed a redacted
version of Exhibit 2 (ECF No. 140), and now assert that the placeholder they filed for Exhibit 2
(ECF No. 137) was filed in error (see ECF No. 150 at 3).
The parties are in agreement with respect to the continued sealing or unsealing of the
documents at issue. They agree that: (1) Plaintiff’s Exhibit 8 (ECF No. 125) should remain sealed
because it contains Plaintiff’s private confidential medical information; (2) Plaintiff’s Exhibit 9
(ECF No. 126) may be unsealed because it is a deposition transcript that does not contain the type of
information recognized as protected; (3) Defendants’ placeholder filed in error (ECF No. 137) may
be unsealed and marked as filed in error; (4) Defendants’ Exhibits 4-8 (ECF No. 138) should remain
sealed because they are body-worn camera videos that are not public data under the Minnesota
Government Data Protection Act, Minn. Stat. 13.825, subd. 2(a); and (5) Defendants’ Exhibit 2
(ECF No. 140), a police report, should be further redacted to remove personal information related to
persons not involved in this lawsuit, with the redacted document to be filed publicly while the
unredacted exhibit remains sealed. (See ECF No. 150 at 3-4.) The parties further attached a copy of
Defendant’s Exhibit 2 with their additional proposed redactions (ECF No. 150-1).
Parties may 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. “[T]he weight to be given to the presumption of [public] access must be governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power and resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts.” Id. at 1224 (quoting United States v. Amodeo,71 F.3d 1044, 1049
(2d. Cir. 1995). The parties filed the documents at issue in connection with Plaintiff’s Daubert Motion (ECF No. 115) and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 117). Before the District Judge ruled on these motions, Plaintiff filed a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice (ECF No. 147), and the District Judge, the Honorable David S. Doty, dismissed this matter on April 22, 2024 (ECF No. 149). The documents therefore did not play a role in the District Judge’s exercise of Article III judicial power. Furthermore, having reviewed the documents at issue the Court finds good cause to grant the parties’ Sealing Motion because the Exhibits they request to remain sealed contain sensitive private information or information otherwise protected and confidential under state law.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to Seal (ECF No. [150]) is GRANTED as
follows:
1. The Clerk is directed to keep ECF Nos. [125], [138] and [140] under seal;
2. ECF No. [126] and ECF No. [137], as a placeholder, shall be unsealed 28 days after the
date of this Order, unless a timely motion for further consideration is filed pursuant to Local Rule
5.6(d)(3);
3. ECF No. [137] shall be marked as filed in error; and
4. ECF No. [150-1] shall be publicly filed as Exhibit 2 to Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 117).
Dated: May 8, 2024 s/ Dulce J. Foster
DULCE J. FOSTER
United States Magistrate Judge Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Damarlo West, Case No. 21-cv-1280 (DSD/DJF)
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
City of Minneapolis, et al.,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Seal (“Sealing Motion”) (ECF
No. 150) filed in connection with Plaintiff’s Daubert Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony (“Daubert
Motion”) (ECF No. 115) and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“Summary Judgment
Motion”) (ECF No. 117). Plaintiff filed two exhibits in support of its Daubert Motion under seal
(ECF No. 125, Exhibit 8; ECF No. 126, Exhibit 9) and stated that redaction was impracticable (ECF
No. 130). Defendants filed several exhibits in support of their Summary Judgment Motion
conventionally and under seal. (See ECF No. 137, Exhibit 2; ECF No. 138, Exhibits 4-8.)
Defendants filed placeholders for each of those Exhibits under seal (ECF Nos. 137, 138), along with
a statement that redaction was impracticable (ECF No. 139). Defendants later filed a redacted
version of Exhibit 2 (ECF No. 140), and now assert that the placeholder they filed for Exhibit 2
(ECF No. 137) was filed in error (see ECF No. 150 at 3).
The parties are in agreement with respect to the continued sealing or unsealing of the
documents at issue. They agree that: (1) Plaintiff’s Exhibit 8 (ECF No. 125) should remain sealed
because it contains Plaintiff’s private confidential medical information; (2) Plaintiff’s Exhibit 9
(ECF No. 126) may be unsealed because it is a deposition transcript that does not contain the type of
information recognized as protected; (3) Defendants’ placeholder filed in error (ECF No. 137) may
be unsealed and marked as filed in error; (4) Defendants’ Exhibits 4-8 (ECF No. 138) should remain
sealed because they are body-worn camera videos that are not public data under the Minnesota
Government Data Protection Act, Minn. Stat. 13.825, subd. 2(a); and (5) Defendants’ Exhibit 2
(ECF No. 140), a police report, should be further redacted to remove personal information related to
persons not involved in this lawsuit, with the redacted document to be filed publicly while the
unredacted exhibit remains sealed. (See ECF No. 150 at 3-4.) The parties further attached a copy of
Defendant’s Exhibit 2 with their additional proposed redactions (ECF No. 150-1).
Parties may 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. “[T]he weight to be given to the presumption of [public] access must be governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power and resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts.” Id. at 1224 (quoting United States v. Amodeo,71 F.3d 1044, 1049
(2d. Cir. 1995). The parties filed the documents at issue in connection with Plaintiff’s Daubert Motion (ECF No. 115) and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 117). Before the District Judge ruled on these motions, Plaintiff filed a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice (ECF No. 147), and the District Judge, the Honorable David S. Doty, dismissed this matter on April 22, 2024 (ECF No. 149). The documents therefore did not play a role in the District Judge’s exercise of Article III judicial power. Furthermore, having reviewed the documents at issue the Court finds good cause to grant the parties’ Sealing Motion because the Exhibits they request to remain sealed contain sensitive private information or information otherwise protected and confidential under state law.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to Seal (ECF No. [150]) is GRANTED as
follows:
1. The Clerk is directed to keep ECF Nos. [125], [138] and [140] under seal;
2. ECF No. [126] and ECF No. [137], as a placeholder, shall be unsealed 28 days after the
date of this Order, unless a timely motion for further consideration is filed pursuant to Local Rule
5.6(d)(3);
3. ECF No. [137] shall be marked as filed in error; and
4. ECF No. [150-1] shall be publicly filed as Exhibit 2 to Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 117).
Dated: May 8, 2024 s/ Dulce J. Foster
DULCE J. FOSTER
United States Magistrate Judge Reference
- Status
- Unknown