KLINE v. WILLIAMS et al
Filing
33
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Plaintiff's 32 Motion to Seal is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to Plaintiff at her address of record. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on April 25, 2012. (lcckk3)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
VALERIE KLINE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 05-01102 (HHK)
SETH M. WILLIAMS, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
(April 25, 2012)
Plaintiff Valerie Kline commenced this action pro se on May 27, 2005. The case was
dismissed on August 8, 2006 and the dismissal was affirmed on November 26, 2007. Currently
before the Court is Plaintiff’s [32] Motion to Seal Documents Containing Protected Information
(“Motion to Seal”), filed on April 19, 2012. Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal shall be DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
LEGAL STANDARD
“[T]he decision as to access [to judicial records] is one best left to the sound discretion of the
trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the
particular case.” United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 292, 316-17 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (quoting Nixon
v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)) (notations in original). “[T]he starting point
in considering a motion to seal court records is a ‘strong presumption in favor of public access to
judicial proceedings.’” EEOC v. Nat’l Children’s Ctr. Inc., 98 F.3d 1406, 1409 (D.C. Cir. 1996)
(quoting Johnson v. Greater Se. Cmty. Hosp. Corp., 951 F.2d 1268, 1277 (D.C. Cir. 1991)). Six
factors are generally considered when determining whether a movant has shown sufficiently
compelling circumstances to overcome the presumption in favor of public access: (1) the need for
public access to the documents at issue; (2) the extent of previous public access to the documents
at issue; (3) the fact that someone has objected to disclosure, and the identity of that person; (4) the
strength of any property or privacy interests asserted; (5) the possibility of prejudice to those
opposing disclosure; and (6) the purposes for which the documents were introduced during the
judicial proceedings. Hubbard, 650 F.2d at 317-22.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s [32] Motion to Seal consists of a single paragraph:
Plaintiff Valerie Kline, pro se, filed documents in this case that
should have been sealed because they contained protected
information and should not be available for public viewing.
Specifically, Plaintiff submits that documents filed under Docket
Entry Nos. 1, 24 and 29 contain protected information and should be
sealed. Therefore, Plaintiff requests that this Court grant the attached
proposed Order for sealing these documents.
Pl.’s Mot. to Seal at 1. Plaintiff’s cursory “motion,” to the extent it can even be characterized as
such, is woefully insufficient to overcome the strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial
proceedings. Moreover, no motion to seal was filed at the time Plaintiff filed her pleadings on the
public docket. To the extent Plaintiff believes all or part of the referenced documents should be
maintained under seal, she must address each of the Hubbard factors and correlate those factors to
specific information in the referenced documents. Among other things, Plaintiff must explain why
sealing is appropriate at this advanced date, when all the referenced documents have been available
to the public for a minimum of five years and five months.
/
/
/
2
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, it is, this 25th day of April, 2012, hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s [32] Motion to Seal is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and
it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and
Order to Plaintiff at her address of record.
SO ORDERED.
/s/
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
United States District Judge
Sitting as the Motions Judge under Local Civil Rule 40.8
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?