Jonathan Redgrave Quoted in Law360 Article “‘Rubber-Stamp’ Doc Sealing In Federal Civil Cases ‘Run Amok’”

Jonathan Redgrave is quoted in the Law360 article “‘Rubber-Stamp’ Doc Sealing In Federal Civil Cases ‘Run Amok,’” which examines a new empirical study of sealing practices in federal civil courts.  The study, forthcoming in the Duke Law Journal, analyzed over two million federal civil cases and concluded that sealing motions are routinely granted without opposition or adequate legal scrutiny.

The article presents perspectives from both proponents of greater court transparency and practitioners in the defense bar.  Jonathan offers a counterpoint to the study’s central findings, drawing on his experience in federal litigation.

Jonathan’s remarks from his interview with Law360 Pulse are below.

***

While acknowledging that judges could improve how they write their orders to provide more insight into their legal rationale, Jonathan cautioned it would be a “disservice” to the federal judiciary to argue that judges are not thinking hard about those orders:  “I haven't met a judge yet who rubber-stamped and just didn't care about making sure this is done right, whether or not they wrote it up or not.”

Jonathan also said that in his 35 years of experience practicing, judges take sealing motions seriously and vet them before signing off, even if their full reasoning doesn’t always make it into the final order.  In some instances, the study’s framing may lump unnecessary sealing orders with those reached in a measured and targeted way.

Jonathan noted, for example, ongoing multidistrict litigation he’s working on in which he and the plaintiffs’ counsel negotiated a limited sealing arrangement, which he said the judge will likely approve.  By the standards of the paper, that sealing order would likely count toward the total number of sealing orders granted, but in reality, it is an example of the system working as it should.

Jonathan said the study also may group together different types of parties seeking sealing orders for different reasons — sealing orders are sometimes sought for good reason by third parties whose private data has been caught up in a corporation’s data. 

“I don't agree with the fundamental premise that there’s this massive problem where the judges are just falling down on the job, they’re not aware of the standards, and they don’t care,” Jonathan said.  “I just don’t agree with that, and I don’t think the data presented here is changing my view on that.”

On the study’s proposed reforms, Jonathan said the proposals around third-party intervenors in particular could create a “satellite litigation machine,” or third parties arguing over disclosures and distracting from the merits of the cases.

Read the full article here.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of their law firm or any of its clients.