Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. The Erection Company, Inc.

900 F.2d 168 52 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 786 , 53 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 39,790 , 58 USLW 2635 , 17 Media L. Rep. 1667 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The ERECTION COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee. No. 89-35131. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 5, 1990. Decided March 27, 1990. Estelle D. Franklin, E.E.O.C., Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellant. Michel M. Sales, Oles, Morrison & Rinker, Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Before WRIGHT, REINHARDT and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges. ORDER 1 This appeal challenges the sealing of a consent decree. Because the district court failed to articulate any basis for the sealing of the decree, we REVERSE and REMAND with instructions to the court to articulate its reasoning and findings. FACTS 2 In May, 1986, appellant, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), filed an employment discrimination action against appellee Erection Company under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et seq. The EEOC alleged that the employer had misused name request…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

The order of remand constitutes an idle judicial act. It requires the district court and the parties to spend unnecessary time and energy revisiting an issue that deserves no further judicial attention. Moreover, a remand may lead to future appeals by one of the parties, resulting in a further waste of judicial resources. To put it bluntly, there is simply no justification in this case for anything but an outright reversal.

In Valley Broadcasting v. United States District Court, 798 F.2d 1289 , 1294 (9th Cir.1986), we discussed the strong presumption in favor of access to judicial documents. The district court in Valley Broadcasting denied a television station access to certain audio and video tape exhibits presented in the course of the trial. It explained that the station’s request to copy the tapes caused substantial inconveniences, created the risk of loss or erasure of the original copies, complicated the selection of an unbiased jury in the upcoming trials, and might taint empaneled jurors. We examined at length the merits of each of the articulated reasons and rejected all of them. We held that “[wjithout articula-ble facts, such…

ORDER

This appeal challenges the sealing of a consent decree. Because the district court failed to articulate any basis for the sealing of the decree, we REVERSE and REMAND with instructions to the court to articulate its reasoning and findings.

FACTS

In May, 1986, appellant, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), filed an employment discrimination action against appellee Erection Company under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The EEOC alleged that the employer had misused name request referral procedures in its collective bargaining agreement with Ironworkers Local Union No. 86 in discriminating against black workers.

In October 1988, following substantial settlement negotiations, the parties reached a tentative settlement agreement in the form of a consent decree. That decree contained a nondisclosure provision.

The nondisclosure provision was unacceptable to the EEOC Office of the General Counsel in Washington, D.C. The parties agreed to strike the provision and have the question of sealing decided on motion by the district court.

On October 27,1988, following oral argument on the issue, the court granted the motion to…