United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Oxford Division
MATTIE BRIGHT, as Guardian and next of kin for her daughter, Jane Doe PLAINTIFF
TUNICA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, DEFENDANTS
M. BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court in this civil rights action is Mattie Bright's
motion to seal seven exhibits to her response to Bernard
Stephen Chandler's motion for summary judgment. Doc. #74.
August 24, 2016, Mattie Bright filed an amended complaint on
behalf of her daughter, Jane Doe, in the Circuit Court of
Tunica County, Mississippi. Doc. #2. The amended complaint,
which asserts claims under Title IX and 42 U.S.C. §
1983, names as defendants (1) Tunica County School District;
(2) Bernard Stephen Chandler, the Superintendent of the
District, in his official and individual capacities; (3)
Milton Hardrict, the principal at Coahoma Agricultural High
School, in his official and individual capacities; (4)
Stanley Ellis, the Assistant Superintendent of the District
and the District's Title IX Coordinator, in his official
and individual capacities; and (5) Brittany Brown, a teacher
in the District, in her official and individual capacities.
The amended complaint alleges the various defendants are
liable for a sexual assault and subsequent harassment Jane
Doe suffered while a student in the District.
April 10, 2017, Bernard Stephen Chandler filed a motion for
summary judgment. Doc. #57. After her motion for a Rule 56(d)
discovery period was denied, Bright responded in opposition
to the motion. Doc. #71.
August 28, 2017, Bright filed a motion to seal Exhibits 3, 4,
5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 to her response to Chandler's motion
for summary judgment, representing the motion is unopposed.
Doc. #74. The same day, Chandler, Ellis, Hardrict, and the
District responded to the motion. Doc. #75.
Motion to Seal Standard
of the Uniform Local Civil Rules provides that no document
may be filed under seal without a court order. L.U. Civ. R.
79(b). In this regard, Local Rule 79(d) instructs that
“[n]o document may be sealed merely by stipulation of
the parties.” Though “[a] confidentiality order
or protective order entered by the court to govern discovery
will not qualify as an order to seal documents for purposes
of this rule, ” “[a] statute mandating or
permitting the non-disclosure of a class of documents
provides sufficient authority to support an order sealing
documents.” L.U. Civ. R. 79(b), (d).
Any motion to seal must be accompanied by a non-confidential
supporting memorandum, a notice that identifies the motion as
a sealing motion, and a proposed order. A party may also
submit a confidential memorandum for in camera review. The
non-confidential memorandum and the proposed order must
(A) A non-confidential description of what is to be sealed;
(B) A specific request that the document or case:
(1) Be sealed from any access by the public and the
(2) Be sealed from public access only, with CM/ECF access
permitted to the ...