UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
JUDGE SEAN D. JORDAN
STANDING ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL IN CIVIL CASES
This Order is intended to ensure that the Court complies with governing law
on the presumption of public access to judicial proceedings and records, and the
requirements for permitting any document submitted to the Court to be filed or kept
under seal. Section A summarizes the legal standard that applies to motions to seal
documents submitted to the Court. Parties should be familiar with this standard
before seeking leave to file materials under seal. Section B sets out the specific
procedures that parties must follow when seeking leave to file materials under seal
in civil cases before this Court, and supplements Local Rule 5(a)(7). This Order
applies only to the filing of documents under seal in civil cases before Judge Sean D.
Jordan.
A. Legal Standard
“Providing public access to judicial records is the duty and responsibility of the
Judicial Branch.” Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 417 (5th Cir. 2021)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Such records “belong to the
American people; they are public, not private, documents.” Id. With these principles
in mind, the Fifth Circuit has instructed courts to be “ungenerous with their
discretion to seal judicial records.” Id. at 418; see also June Med. Servs., L.L.C. v.
Phillips, 22 F.4th 512, 519–20 (5th Cir. 2022) (explaining that the Fifth Circuit
“heavily disfavor[s] sealing information placed in the judicial record”). When
1
presented with a motion to seal, courts must consider and protect the public’s
“common law right to inspect and copy judicial records.” Bradley on behalf of AJW v.
Ackal, 954 F.3d 216, 224 (5th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). “This right promotes the
trustworthiness of the judicial process, curbs judicial abuses, and provides the public
with a better understanding of the judicial process, including its fairness, and serves
as a check on the integrity of the system.” Id. (cleaned up).
The public’s common-law right is not absolute, however, and the presumption
of public access can be rebutted by “compelling countervailing interests favoring
nondisclosure.” Binh Hoa Le, 990 F.3d at 421. Thus, courts must “undertake a case-
by-case, document-by-document, line-by-line balancing of the public’s common law
right of access against the interests favoring nondisclosure.” Id. at 419 (cleaned up);
see also DePuy Synthes Prods., Inc. v. Veterinary Orthopedic Implants, Inc., 990 F.3d
1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“[The Federal Circuit] appl[ies] regional circuit law in
determining the applicable [sealing] standard,” which is “substantially the same
across circuits: the parties seeking confidentiality must present a strong justification
to overcome the presumption of public access.”). This balancing should include a
“consideration of less drastic alternatives” to sealing entire documents. Binh Hoa Le,
990 F.3d at 420. For example, where the movant’s interests can be protected by
redacting portions of a document, rather than sealing the entire document, courts
generally favor redaction as a less drastic alternative. See, e.g., Mach Flynt Inc. v.
Veritiv Operating Co., No. 2:24-CV-01444, 2025 WL 56333, at *2 (W.D. La. Jan. 9,
2
2025) (refusing to seal an entire contract where confidential pricing information
appeared only in an appendix to the contract).
Litigants should understand that the standard for filing material under seal
in the judicial record is not the same as the standard for designating that material as
“confidential” under a protective order. “That a document qualifies for a protective
order under Rule 26(c) for discovery says nothing about whether it should be sealed
once it is placed in the judicial record.” June Med. Servs., 22 F.4th at 521 (emphasis
in original). The Fifth Circuit has admonished that “courts are duty-bound to protect
public access to judicial proceedings and records,” a duty that is all too “easy to
overlook” in the context of stipulated sealings, and that it is inappropriate to
“presume[e] that whatever satisfies the lenient protective-order standard will
necessarily satisfy the stringent sealing-order standard.” Binh Hoa Le, 990 F.3d
at 417–18.
B. Procedures
A movant seeking leave to file materials under seal must file three documents,
separately and in the following order:
1. Motion to seal (filed under seal). The motion must address the legal
standard governing motions to seal, as summarized in Section A above.
That is to say, it must include a document-by-document, line-by-line
balancing of the public’s common law right of access against the
interests favoring nondisclosure. In so doing, the motion should list each
separate proposed redaction—i.e., each discrete span of text or other
material that the movant seeks to redact—and demonstrate that
redaction of such material is authorized under controlling precedent.
If the party seeks to seal an entire document, it must explain why
redacting portions of that document would not suffice to protect its
interests.
3
The seal motion need not attach a proposed order. However, if a
proposed order is attached, it should reference each separate proposed
redaction on the list by number.
2. Sealed, unredacted version of the document(s) sought to be
sealed. At the time the seal motion is filed, the movant should
separately file, under seal, an unredacted version of the document(s)
sought to be sealed.
3. Public (non-sealed), redacted copy of the document(s) sought to
be sealed. At the time the seal motion is filed, the movant should also
separately file a redacted version of the document(s) sought to be sealed.
Only that material alleged to be sealable should be redacted. Each
redaction must correspond to the listed items in the seal motion.
In the unusual circumstance that a party seeks to seal an entire document, the
party. need not file the third document (a public, redacted copy). In all other
circumstances, failure to file the third document will result in the first two documents
being stricken.
This Order supersedes Local Rule CV-5(a)(7)(E) for the filing of any sealed
document in this Court. A movant’s failure to address and comply with the legal
standard governing motions to seal, as summarized in Section A above, will result in
the motion to seal being denied and the sealed document(s) being stricken.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 15th day of December, 2025.
____________________________________
SEAN D. JORDAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
