From Judge Eric Tostrud (D. Minn.) last week in Maki v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Minneapolis:
On May 21, 2025, the Court docketed an Opinion and Order resolving motions to exclude expert testimony and for summary judgment. [It's available here. -EV] On May 27, Defendant Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis moved to seal the Opinion and Order. The Bank "seeks to keep confidential three narrow categories of information: (1) details regarding law enforcement shifts and staffing at the Bank, (2) references to staffing of security posts at the Bank, and (3) discussion of modifications to the Bank's security protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic."
In the Bank's view, "there are compelling national security and safety reasons" that justify preventing public "disclosure of information that could provide insights and impressions about the Bank's security, regardless of whether the information is about currently-in-force protocols." If its motion is granted, the Bank proposes to "submit a confidential copy of the Order with the confidential portions marked for the Court's review." If the Court approves of the proposed redactions, then the Bank proposes that the Opinion and Order be republished with the redactions….
"[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents." "This right of access bolsters public confidence in the judicial system by allowing citizens to evaluate the reasonableness and fairness of judicial proceedings, and to keep a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies." "It also provides a measure of accountability to the public at large, which pays for the courts." … When it attaches, a court must decide "whether there [are] sufficient grounds to override the common-law right of access" that justify sealing the judicial record ….
The Bank's motion will be denied. (1) The information subject to the Bank's motion was material and important to the decision denying the parties' competing summary-judgment motions. It figured centrally in deciding whether the Bank could accommodate Mr. Maki's religious objections to the Bank's COVID-19 vaccination policy without incurring undue hardship. Put another way, the rationale underlying the accommodation and undue-hardship analysis cannot realistically be understood without accessing this information.
