Sealing documents; The district court’s jurisdiction; Rudd Equip Co v John Deere Constr & Forestry Co; Standing; Whether sealing the documents was justified; In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co, Inc; Shane Group, Inc v Blue Cross Blue Shield of MI; Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp v FTC

The court vacated the district court’s order, which declined to unseal 24 deposition transcripts, and remanded for the district court to provide specific findings and conclusions justifying nondisclosure to the public. Defendant-CoreCivic (formerly known as Corrections Corporation of America) operates private prisons and contracted to house federal prisoners. There were safety and security concerns, and the Bureau of Prisons decided not to renew one of their contracts. After a Department of Justice report cited the high violence rate at CoreCivic’s facilities, and a related Deputy Attorney General memo, CoreCivic’s stock value fell, and this stockholder class-action was brought. Throughout the proceedings, the district court designated a high number of documents as “confidential,” “under seal,” and “protected from public disclosure.” When the case finally settled, “hundreds of documents in the court record were under seal. For none of them,” as far as the court could “tell, did the district court set forth any reasoning in support of its orders to seal.” Two years later, the Nashville Banner intervened and moved to unseal the documents. The majority were unsealed, but two dozen deposition transcripts (and other documents) were kept under seal. The Banner appealed as to the deposition transcripts. The court first held that the district court had jurisdiction to enter the order here because a court “‘may consider collateral issues after an action is no longer pending.’” It also held that the Banner had standing. It then reiterated its prior holdings “that ‘[o]nly the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of court records.’” Moreover, a district court that seals a document is required to “‘set forth specific findings and conclusions “which justify nondisclosure to the public.”’” The court noted that the district court here, in sealing these transcripts, “made no findings whatever. That ‘is itself grounds to vacate’ the” seal. The court further noted there was no “attempt to make the seals narrowly tailored.” It vacated the order as applied to the sealed deposition transcripts and remanded for the district court to determine, within 60 days, whether any part of them “meet the requirements for a seal.”