Requiring Compelling Reasons and Specific Findings to Seal Court Records: The Sixth Circuit’s Mandate in Grae v. CoreCivic

1. Introduction

In Nikki Bollinger Grae et al. v. Corrections Corporation of America (now CoreCivic), the Sixth Circuit addressed the fundamental question of public access to judicial records and the proper procedure for sealing court filings. The dispute arose from a shareholder‐class action against CoreCivic, a private prison operator, challenging its management practices and resulting financial disclosures. After the District Court routinely sealed hundreds of filings—including deposition transcripts designated “confidential” under a protective order—a local newspaper, the Nashville Banner, successfully intervened and moved to unseal large portions of the docket. The District Court granted access in part but kept 24 deposition transcripts under seal. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit vacated that partial denial and remanded, holding that the sealing orders flouted settled circuit rules requiring (1) a strong presumption of openness, (2) compelling reasons narrowly tailored to justify secrecy, and (3) specific findings on the record.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Kethledge reaffirmed that “only the most compelling reasons can justify non‐disclosure of court records,” as established in Shane Group, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich. and In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. The court held that the District Court had jurisdiction to entertain the unsealing motion as a collateral matter, reaffirmed the Nashville Banner’s standing, and reviewed the sealing orders for abuse of discretion (with less deference than usual). It found three principal defects:

1. The District Court made no specific findings explaining why each transcript deserved sealing;
2. It failed to demonstrate that any proffered interest—beyond boilerplate assertions of “confidentiality” or “competitive sensitivity”—was compelling; and
3. The seal orders were not narrowly tailored to protect only the parts of the transcripts that might legitimately warrant secrecy.

Accordingly, the court vacated the sealing orders as to the 24 transcripts and remanded for a prompt, record-specific determination in compliance with Sixth Circuit precedents.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

• Shane Group, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich. (825 F.3d 299, 305–06): Establishes the strong presumption of public access to judicial records and the requirement that sealing orders identify compelling reasons, explain why access interests are outweighed, and tailor the seal narrowly.
• In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. (723 F.2d 470, 476): Articulates that “only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.”
• Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. (496 U.S. 384, 395): Confirms district courts retain jurisdiction to resolve collateral matters—such as unsealing—after final judgment.
• Rudd Equip. Co. v. John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co. (834 F.3d 589, 593): Reaffirms that the party seeking a seal bears the burden of showing a compelling interest on a document-by-document basis.
• Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC (710 F.2d 1165, 1176): Requires “specific findings and conclusions” to justify nondisclosure.
• Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs. (297 F.3d 544, 546–47): Limits proper sealing to trade secrets, privileged information, or material required by statute to remain confidential; rejects sealing merely to conceal contract prices or salary data.
• United States v. Amodeo (71 F.3d 1044, 1050 & n.7, 1057 (2d Cir. 1995)): Emphasizes privacy interests of innocent third parties as a potentially compelling basis for sealing.
• United States ex rel. Oberg v. Nelnet, Inc. (105 F.4th 161, 171 (4th Cir. 2024)): Defines “judicial records” as documents filed to obtain judicial action or that play a role in adjudication.
• Metlife, Inc. v. Financial Stability Oversight Council (865 F.3d 661, 668 (D.C. Cir. 2017)): Holds that entire documents become judicial records, not just excerpts cited by the court or parties.
• City of Greenville v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC (764 F.3d 695, 698 (7th Cir. 2014)): Explains that revealing why material was deemed irrelevant can itself illuminate the judicial process.
• Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart (467 U.S. 20, 34–35 (1984)): Explains that materials filed merely to circumvent protective-order limits are not judicial records entitled to a presumption of access.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Sixth Circuit’s opinion proceeds in two steps: jurisdiction and merits. First, it confirms that unsealing is a collateral matter and that final judgment does not deprive the District Court of authority to reconsider sealing orders. Second, on the merits, it applies an abuse‐of‐discretion standard but “without the deference that standard normally brings” (Shane Group). Under that standard, courts must begin with a “strong presumption of openness” for all documents filed to secure judicial action. To override that presumption, the sealing party (here, CoreCivic) must:

1. Demonstrate a compelling interest that disclosure would seriously harm;
2. Explain why public access interests are comparatively weaker;
3. Show that the seal is no broader than necessary (i.e., narrow tailoring); and
4. Articulate specific findings and conclusions on the record for each document.

The opinion emphasizes that “[b]oilerplate assertions” of confidentiality or competitive harm are insufficient. Instead, only information rising to the level of trade secrets, recognized privileges, statutory mandates, or third‐party privacy may overcome the presumption. Moreover, the burden of justification lies with the party seeking secrecy, not with the court.

3.3 Impact

This decision reinforces judicial transparency in the Sixth Circuit. District courts must now be vigilant in policing any sealing requests, ensuring that parties provide specific, document‐level justification and that judges make on-the-record findings. The ruling will help prevent “seal‐as-routine” practices in complex, multi-party litigation and ensure that the public and the press maintain meaningful access to information about corporate conduct, government oversight, and judicial decision-making. It may also influence other circuits by emphasizing the necessity of narrow tailoring and vigorous application of the presumption of openness.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Presumption of Openness

The legal starting point that most filings in federal court are public and must remain accessible unless a very strong reason exists to seal them.

Sealing

The practice of preventing public online or physical access to court filings by placing them under seal.

Compelling Reason

A reason so significant—such as protecting trade secrets or individual privacy—that it outweighs the public’s right to know.

Narrow Tailoring

Limiting the seal to the smallest portion of a document necessary to protect the compelling interest.

Judicial Record

Any document filed with the court to seek relief or that otherwise plays a direct role in adjudication.

Collateral Order

A non‐final, but important, ruling that can be reviewed on appeal despite the case having ended, such as a sealing order.

5. Conclusion

Grae v. Corrections Corporation of America reasserts the Sixth Circuit’s firm commitment to open justice. It clarifies that sealing is an extraordinary remedy, available only upon a document‐by‐document showing of compelling interests, supported by on-the-record findings and narrowly drawn orders. By vacating the District Court’s blanket sealing of deposition transcripts and remanding for fresh, precedent-compliant analysis, the court ensures that future litigants and judges will respect both the public’s right to know and the legitimate confidentiality interests of parties.

Key takeaways:

• Sealing judicial records requires specific findings, not boilerplate language.
• Only trade secrets, recognized privileges, statutory confidentiality, and third-party privacy interests typically suffice.
• The party seeking a seal bears the burden of proving a compelling interest on a line-by-line basis.
• Public access to court proceedings remains the rule; secrecy is the exception.