Court of Federal Claims denies motion to have protest records sealed: Medical and Education Training Campus’s (METC) Solicitation for Advisory and Program Management Support

On December 18, 2024, Plaintiff Dee Monbo, appearing pro se, filed this pre-award bid protest challenging the Medical and Education Training Campus’s (METC) Solicitation for Advisory and Program Management Support (Solicitation).  See ECF No. 1 (Complaint or Compl.); ECF No. 1-1 (Exhibits).1  That same day, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Leave to File Complaint and Exhibits Under Seal,” asserting generally that her Complaint and Exhibits “contain sensitive Government Source Selection Documents”2 as well as “confidential information on Dee Monbo and her affiliates” which has “economic value to Dee Monbo and her affiliates and provides an advantage over competitors.”  See ECF No. 2 (Motion to Seal or Mot.) at 1. 3  Defendant did not file a response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal.4

There is a strong presumption of public access to judicial proceedings and records. In re Violation of Rule 28(D), 635 F.3d 1352, 1356–57 (Fed. Cir. 2011).  The trial court has discretion to determine whether to restrict public access to court documents, but that discretion “is circumscribed by the presumption that the public shall have access to those records absent a compelling justification for sealing.”  Miller-Holzwarth, Inc. v. United States, 44 Fed. Cl. 153, 154 (1999) (quoting Pratt & Whitney Canada Inc. v. United States, 14 Cl. Ct. 268, 274 (1988)).  The Court “must weigh the interests advanced by the parties in light of the public interest and the duty of the courts.”  Monbo v. United States, No. 24-890C, 2024 WL 4404387, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 4, 2024) (quoting In re Violation of Rule 28(D), 635 F.3d at 1356).  The party filing a motion to seal bears the “heavy burden” to provide a “compelling justification” or “substantial reasons” which will overcome the presumption of public access…

Here, the disclosure of Plaintiff’s Complaint and Exhibits would not “affect th[e] procurement,” or “harm [Plaintiff’s] competitive standing” and Plaintiff fails to otherwise provide a “compelling justification” or “substantial reasons” for this Court to seal her Complaint and Exhibits.  See id.; Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598; Torres Advanced Enter. Sols., LLC, 135 Fed. Cl. at 4.  Plaintiff broadly requests that this Court seal her Complaint and Exhibits, asserting that they “contain sensitive Government Source Selection Documents,” and “confidential information on Dee Monbo and her affiliates” which has “economic value to Dee Monbo and her affiliates and provides an advantage over competitors.” 5  Mot. at 1.  However, Plaintiff fails to indicate the specific portions of her filings which contain such confidential information…

Further, Plaintiff has failed to explain how the disclosure of this information would cause any harm or “affect the ongoing procurement.”  Monbo, 2024 WL 4404387, at *2.  The only information in Plaintiff’s Complaint and Exhibits that is not publicly available or available to all participants in the procurement is the METC Organization Chart, which pertains to Defendant and its employees.  Absent any indication from Defendant that this information should remain sealed, the Court declines to upend the strong presumption of access to judicial proceedings and records.  In re Violation of Rule 28(D), 635 F.3d at 1356. In sum, “weigh[ing] the interests advanced by the parties in light of the public interest and the duty of the courts,” Plaintiff has failed carry her burden.  Monbo, 2024 WL 4404387, at *2.  Plaintiff fails to identify any portion of her Complaint and Exhibits that contains sensitive, confidential information or explain why the disclosure of any information included in those documents would affect this procurement or otherwise cause harm.  See id.; Torres Advanced Enter. Sols., LLC, 135 Fed. Cl. at 4.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (ECF No. 2) is DENIED.  The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to unseal Plaintiff’s Complaint and Exhibits (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1).

See the decision here.

🔊 Listen to Story