Unsealing Memo Cosby
Unsealing Memo Cosby
Unsealing Memo Cosby
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM H. COSBY, JR.,
Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION
No. 05-1099
M E M O R A N D U M
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.
July 6, 2015
I.
of the seal shall show cause why the seal should not be lifted,
id. at 2, and explained that the purpose of the interim sealing
and protocol was to develop a record upon which the Court may
calibrate the scales upon which the proper balancing of private
and public interests may take place, id. at 3 n.1. It is
pursuant to this order that the Documents were initially sealed.
On November 23, 2005, the AP filed a motion to
intervene and lift the seal on the filings related to the
parties discovery disputes.3 See Second Mot. Intervene and
Unseal, ECF No. 51. The Court denied the APs motion without
prejudice pending the outcome of discovery. See Mem. and Order
dated Jan. 13, 2006, ECF No. 72. In its memorandum, the Court
stated that [i]n the event that the Court grants a protective
order supported by specific findings sealing any materials, any
interested party will have an opportunity to request to
intervene and challenge the ruling granting the protective order
at that time. Id. at 12. The Court further stated that [a]fter
the Court rules on the motions to compel and unless the
protection of the seal is extended, the seal will lapse. Id. at
II.
LEGAL STANDARDS
A.
whether disclosure
interests;
will
(2)
(3)
violate
any
privacy
a
(4)
sought over
health
and
(5)
whether
the
sharing
of
information
among
litigants will promote fairness and efficiency;
(6)
(7)
Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir. 1995)
(citing Pansy, 23 F.3d at 787-91)). The Pansy court also
discussed how courts should analyze motions to change or lift
protective orders:
The appropriate approach in considering motions to
modify confidentiality orders is to use the same
balancing test that is used in determining whether to
grant such orders in the first instance, with one
difference: one of the factors the court should
consider in determining whether to modify the order is
the
reliance
by
the
original
parties
on
the
confidentiality order. The parties reliance on an
order, however, should not be outcome determinative,
and should only be one factor that a court considers
when determining whether to modify an order of
confidentiality.
Pansy, 23 F.3d at 790 (footnote omitted). These factors are
neither mandatory nor exhaustive, but provide a useful
framework upon which a court may base its analysis. Glenmede
Trust Co., 56 F.3d at 483.
The Third Circuit has emphasized that good cause must
be shown by articulat[ing] a[] specific, cognizable injury from
10
III. DISCUSSION
The Documents were filed with the Court in connection
with a number of different discovery disputes between the
parties. While the bulk of the Documents consists of legal
arguments advanced by counsel--including counsels
characterizations of deposition testimony--the Court impressed
all of the Documents with an interim seal. Some of the Documents
11
Pl.s Mot. to Compel Disc. 1-2, 5, 10, 16, 18-20, 26, 28,
41-43, and 45-47 (ECF No. 50);
12
10
12
14
Embarrassment
The Third Circuit has stated that, because release of
20
Reliance
Defendant contends that releasing the deposition
21
D.
IV.
CONCLUSION
After balancing all of the pertinent Pansy factors,24
24