Ferrand v. Credit Lyonnais
2015 WL 3378454, 106 F. Supp. 3d 452, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65883 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The public has a strong First Amendment right of access to judicial documents, particularly court decisions, which can only be overcome if specific, on-the-record findings demonstrate that sealing is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.
Facts:
- Maia Ferrand was formerly employed by Credit Lyonnais.
- Ferrand believed Credit Lyonnais had discriminated against her based on gender.
- Years after her case concluded, Ferrand moved the court to seal the Decisions and Orders from her lawsuit from the public record.
- Ferrand also requested the court to direct all search engines to remove these Decisions and Orders from the public domain.
- Ferrand stated that her objective in seeking to seal and remove these documents was to avoid continued personal harm.
Procedural Posture:
- Maia Ferrand brought an action in the Southern District of New York alleging gender discrimination against her prior employer, Credit Lyonnais.
- The District Court granted Credit Lyonnais’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 32).
- The District Court denied Ferrand’s motion requesting reconsideration of the summary judgment ruling (Dkt. No. 39).
- By letter dated April 20, 2015, Ferrand moved the District Court to seal the Decisions and Orders in the referenced matter and to direct all search engines to remove them from the public domain (Dkt. No. 43).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the First Amendment right of public access to judicial documents permit a court to seal its prior summary judgment and reconsideration decisions and direct search engines to remove them from the public domain, based solely on a party's request to avoid continued personal harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Victor Marrero
No. The First Amendment right of public access to judicial documents does not permit the court to seal its prior summary judgment and reconsideration decisions or direct search engines to remove them from the public domain, because no specific, on-the-record findings have been made demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The Court first confirmed that the Decisions and Orders are 'judicial documents' because they are relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process. This establishes a common law presumption of public access, which carries great weight as these documents represent the core exercise of judicial power. However, the Court determined that an even stronger First Amendment right of public access attaches to these documents, which supersedes the common law analysis. To apply the First Amendment right of access, the Court considered whether 'experience and logic' support making the documents public. First, regarding 'experience,' court decisions have historically been open to the public, aligning with a general right to inspect public records and documents. Second, regarding 'logic,' public access to court decisions plays a significant positive role in the judicial system by enabling democratic monitoring, providing critical views of judicial work, and deterring arbitrary behavior. Since both 'experience' and 'logic' prongs were met, the First Amendment right of access applies. Consequently, these documents can only be sealed if 'specific, on the record findings are made demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.' The Court found no such findings were warranted on the record before it. Furthermore, the Court noted that sealing the documents and directing search engines to remove them would be pointless, as the decisions are already published in official law reporters and are matters of public record.
Analysis:
This case strongly reaffirms the fundamental principle of judicial transparency, establishing a high threshold for overcoming the public's right to access court decisions. It underscores that personal harm or inconvenience, without more, is insufficient to justify sealing judicial documents under the robust protection of the First Amendment. The decision ensures that public access to judicial processes remains paramount, providing a critical check on judicial power and maintaining public trust, making it exceedingly difficult for litigants to scrub adverse rulings from the public record.
