The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 21-cv-23478-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
EVGENY RYZHOV,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS,
Acting Secretary of the United States
Department of Homeland Security,
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER ON MOTION TO SEAL
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Evgeny Ryzhov’s (“Plaintiff” or
“Rhyzov”) Motion to Seal, ECF No. [3] (“Motion”), filed in conjunction with his Complaint, ECF
No. [1]. For the reasons that follow, the Motion is denied.
“[T]he common-law right of access to judicial proceedings, an essential component of our
system of justice, is instrumental in securing the integrity of the process.” Chicago Tribune Co. v.
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing Richmond Newspapers,
Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 564-74 (1980)). “Once a matter is brought before a court for
resolution, it is no longer solely the parties’ case, but also the public’s case.” Brown v. Advantage
Eng’g., Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992). Where a court “attempts to deny access in
order to inhibit the disclosure of sensitive information, it must be shown that the denial is
necessitated by a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to that interest.”
Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796, 802-03 (11th Cir.1983); see also Brown, 960 F.2d at 1015-16
(11th Cir.1992); Wilson v. American Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568, 1571 (11th Cir.1992).
Courts “have discretion to determine which portions of the record should be placed under
seal, but [such] discretion is guided by the presumption of public access to judicial documents.”
Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 717 F.3d 1224, 1235 (11th Cir. 2013). Public or judicial
records are presumptively public, while documents which are not considered public or judicial
records, such as discovery documents, are not. See F.T.C. v. AbbVie Prods. LLC, 713 F.3d 54 (11th
Cir. 2013). “Judges deliberate in private but issue public decisions after public arguments based
on public records . . . . Any step that withdraws an element of the judicial process from public
view makes the ensuing decision look more like fiat and requires rigorous justification.” Perez-
Guerrero, 717 F.3d at 1235 (alteration in original) (quoting Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439
F.3d 346, 348 (7th Cir. 2006), abrogation on other grounds recognized by RTP LLC v. ORIX Real
Estate Capital, Inc., 827 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 2016)).
Under the Local Rules, “[u]nless otherwise provided by law, Court rule, or Court order,
proceedings in the United States District Court are public and Court filings are matters of public
record.” S.D. Fla. L.R. 5.4 (2020). Within this framework, a party seeking to file documents under
seal in a civil case must provide the factual and legal basis for the sealed filing be provided as
follows:
A party or pro se party seeking to seal a case in its entirety must file a motion to
seal . . . [which] must set forth the factual and legal basis for departing from the
policy that Court filings be public . . .”
S.D. Fla. Local Rule 5.4(b)(3).
Here, Plaintiff asserts that he is an asylee who, along with his family, is “still persecuted
by the Russian corrupt high-level officials and their accomplices who had sent to Plaintiff death
threats. Thereby, Plaintiff seeks to avoid unintentional and unauthorized disclosure of any
classified, protected, personal or national security information or documents obtained through the
Case No. 21-cv-23478-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
action from any source, including Defendant.” ECF No. [3] at 1. Plaintiff also asserts that the FBI
is still investigating his “legal complaint,” and that this case “may touch some issues of National
Security that probably should not be in free access in order to avoid abuse in the future.” /d. In this
case, Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus directing Defendant to issue a decision on his family
members’ pending I-730 application. See ECF No. [1]. While the Court can appreciate Plaintiff's
privacy concerns, the Motion does not, however, set forth a sufficient factual or legal basis for
maintaining this entire case under seal. Plaintiff’s conclusory and general assertions regarding
“Russian corrupt high-level officials and their accomplices,” non-particularized assertions that his
family’s immigration petitions “may touch on some issues of National Security,” and FBI
investigation into an unspecified “legal complaint,” do not otherwise satisfy the high burden a
proponent of a motion to seal must overcome.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion, ECF No. [3], is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed
to UNSEAL this case return all filings to the public docket.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on September 29, 2021.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Evgeny Ryzhov, pro se
8655 SW 152nd Avenue, Suite 148
Miami, Florida 33193
Email: E.Ryzhov@ yahoo.com