explaining that “[a]bsent a showing of extraordinary circumstances,” a court file must remain accessible to the public
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “[a]bsent a showing of extraordinary circumstances,” a court file must remain accessible to the public
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
KIMBERLY DIANE SCHWARTZ,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 8:19-cv-2696-T-60TGW
THE UNITED STATES NAVY, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO SEAL
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s pro se Emergency Motion to
Seal, filed on October 29, 2019. (Doc. # 3). After reviewing the motion, court file,
and the record, the Court finds as follows:
In her motion, it appears that Plaintiff seeks for this entire case to be placed
under seal “due to the graphic nature of . . . being a rape victim including being
tortured with an invisible laser.” She additionally asserts that “unless people held
to the higher standard are brought to justice in a civil courtroom this information
should be sealed.” (Doc. # 3).
Initially, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the
requirements of Local Rule 1.09(a). Specifically, Plaintiff has failed to identify and
describe the items proposed for sealing; provide the reason that a means other than
sealing is unavailable or unsatisfactory; provide a statement of the proposed
duration of the seal; and provide a memorandum of legal authority supporting the
seal.
However, regardless of her failure to comply with this rule, the Court would
still deny relief. There is a common law right of access to judicial records, and a
“strong presumption of openness does not permit the routine closing of judicial
records to the public.” Miller v. Indiana Hosp., 16 F.3d 549, 551 (3d Cir. 1994)
(internal quotation omitted); see Brown v. Advantage Engineering, Inc., 960 F.2d
1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992) (explaining that “[a]bsent a showing of extraordinary
circumstances,” a court file must remain accessible to the public). As such, a party
requesting to seal any portion of a judicial record “bears the heavy burden of
showing that the material is the kind of information that courts will protect and
that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking
closure.” Miller, 16 F.3d at 551 (internal quotation omitted). A party seeking to
seal an entire record bears an even heavier burden. Id.
After considering the motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met her
burden of demonstrating that this civil case or any portion thereof should be sealed.
See Brownlee v. Monroe County Correctional Facility, No. 1:18-cv-1318, 2019 WL
2160402, at *3 (M.D. Pa. May 17, 2019) (finding that an allegation that the media
would exploit details of a plaintiff’s rape as a form of entertainment for the public
was too speculative to justify sealing the entire case); Doe v. Family Dollar Stores,
Inc., No. 1:07-cv-1262-TWT-CCH, 2007 WL 9706836, at *4 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 17, 2007)
(concluding that an individual’s privacy interest as a sexual assault victim was not
strong enough to override the judicial presumption of openness). Consequently,
Plaintiffs Emergency Motion to Seal is denied.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
1. Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Seal (Doc. # 3) is denied.
2. The Clerk is directed to unseal the compliant (Doc. # 1) and all other
documents filed in this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida this 30th day of
October, 2019.
4) phd
fp Ls. (Q“
og eel [Le
TOM BARBER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 3 of 3