The case involves Ahmad Milam and others (plaintiffs-appellants) against Dominick’s Finer Foods, Inc. and affiliated parties (defendants-appellees), with an appeal arising from a decision by the Northern District of Illinois. The Chief Judge, Frank Easterbrook, in a chambers opinion, noted that the appellees indicated they might challenge the district court's use of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) to revive the case after it was initially dismissed. The plaintiffs had until May 18 to respond but failed to do so in a timely manner, reflecting a pattern of disregarding deadlines that contributed to their earlier defeat.
The opinion addresses whether a sealed affidavit, which supported the plaintiffs' motion to reopen the case, should remain sealed. The plaintiffs argue that disclosure would harm their counsel's reputation due to personal matters included in the affidavit. However, the court emphasized that the public has a legitimate interest in understanding the nature of the "excusable neglect" that justified reopening the case. The Chief Judge criticized the secrecy surrounding the affidavit and noted that information reflecting poorly on counsel should be disclosed, as it is relevant to the public's right to know about a lawyer's professional conduct. The plaintiffs claimed the Rule 60(b) relief is not an issue on appeal, suggesting the affidavit's confidentiality may not need to be addressed if it is not relevant to the appellate record.
Appellants request the return of a sealed affidavit to the district court without addressing its sealing status. Before proceeding, input from appellees is required, as they may challenge the revival of the case through a Rule 60 motion, which necessitates assessing whether the district court's rationale for sealing the affidavit can remain undisclosed. Dominick’s plans to contest the Rule 60 decision, prompting the need to determine the affidavit's unsealing. Plaintiffs argue that the affidavit should be removed from the appellate record, claiming that the lack of reasoning behind the district judge's dismissal and reinstatement under Rule 60(b)(1) means Dominick’s cannot demonstrate an abuse of discretion. However, an unreasoned decision is more susceptible to appeal. The judge did not justify the dismissal, the sealing of the affidavit, or the Rule 60(b)(1) relief granted. Additionally, it is noted that the district judge did not allow defense counsel to view the affidavit submitted by the plaintiffs, impairing Dominick’s ability to oppose the motion. A decision based on undisclosed information requires strong justification, which has not been provided. The appeal cannot proceed effectively under such secrecy, leading to the conclusion that the affidavit is unsealed and made part of the public record.
