“Once a matter is brought before a court for resolution, it is no longer solely the parties’ case, but also the public’s case.”
How later courts described this case
- “Once a matter is brought before a court for resolution, it is no longer solely the parties’ case, but also the public’s case.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
KARINA FRANCO-REY,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 6:22-cv-1334-CEM-EJK
OSCAR VEGA VAZQUEZ,
Defendant.
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s Motion to Keep Case
from Public Record (the “Motion”), filed August 16, 2022. (Doc. 8.) Upon
consideration, the Motion is due to be denied.
Plaintiff seeks to keep this case “exempt from public record” due to
“cyberstalking, defamation of character, aggravated assault, and all other mentioned .
. . due to the severity and all those involved that have been under the public corruption
cyberstalking eye.” (Id. at 1.) Beyond this, the Motion does not discuss the Complaint
or explain why the case should be shielded from the public view.
Local Rule 1.11(c) requires the following for filing a document under seal, if it
is not authorized by a statute, rule, or order:
(1) must include in the title “Motion for Leave to File Under
Seal”; (2) must describe the item proposed for sealing; (3)
must state the reasons . . . filing the item is necessary, . . .
sealing the item is necessary, and . . . partial sealing,
redaction, or means other than sealing are unavailable or
unsatisfactory; (4) must propose a duration of the seal; (5)
must state the name, mailing address, email address, and
telephone number of the person authorized to retrieve a
sealed, tangible item; (6) must include a legal memorandum
supporting the seal; but (7) must not include the item
proposed for sealing.
In addition to compliance with the Local Rules, this circuit requires a strong
showing by the proponent of a motion to seal before the Court will deny public access
to judicial proceedings. Brown v. Advantage Eng’g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir.
1992) (“Once a matter is brought before a court for resolution, it is no longer solely the
parties’ case, but also the public’s case.”). Courts in this country recognize “a general
right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and
documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978).
However, a party may overcome the public’s right to access by demonstrating
good cause. Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007). If
good cause is shown, the court must balance the interest in obtaining access to the
information against the interest in keeping the information confidential. See Chicago
Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1309 (11th Cir. 2001). Factors
a court may consider are:
[W]hether allowing access would impair court functions or
harm legitimate privacy interests, the degree of and
likelihood of injury if made public, the reliability of the
information, whether there will be an opportunity to
respond to the information, whether the information
concerns public officials or public concerns, and the
availability of a less onerous alternative to sealing the
documents.
Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246.
Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Local Rules and not met her burden of
demonstrating good cause to seal the instant action. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion to Keep Case from Public Record (Doc. 8) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on August 18, 2022.
KIDD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE