SCHWARTZ
v.
UNITED STATES NAVY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiff failed to meet the heavy burden required to overcome the presumption of public access to judicial records and denied the motion to seal.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an emergency motion to seal the entire case, citing the graphic nature of her allegations as a rape victim and tor…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Presumption Of Openness cases and more on FLexlaw
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