Brett v. Curtis et al

Filing 2

ORDER denying 1 Motion to Seal. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 3/26/2014. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
FRANK BRETT,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO: 8:14-cv-727-T-33EAJ

U.S. MARSHAL CURTIS, ET AL.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court pursuant to pro se
Plaintiff Frank Brett's Motion to File this Case Under Seal
(Doc. # 1), which was filed on March 24, 2014.

For the

reasons that follow, the Court denies the Motion.
Analysis
Brett seeks an Order directing that this case be sealed.
The Motion states: "Life has been threatened several times and
I fear for my life.

I was hit by several cars recently and

have a concussion." (Id.).

The Motion contains no further

discussion of the Complaint or why this case should be
shielded from the public view.
In this district, the proponent of a motion to seal must
include: (i) an identification and description of each item
proposed for sealing; (ii) the reason that filing each item is
necessary; (iii) the reason for sealing each item; (iv) the
reason that a means other than sealing is unsatisfactory to

preserve the interest advanced by the motion to seal; (v) a
statement of the proposed duration of the seal; and (vi) a
memorandum of law.

See Local Rule 1.09, M.D. Fla.

In the

case of the present Motion, Brett fails to satisfy Local Rule
1.09.
In addition to the technical requirements of the Court's
Local Rules, the law of the Eleventh Circuit requires a strong
showing by the proponent of a motion to seal before the Court
will deny public access to judicial proceedings. As explained
by the Eleventh Circuit in Brown v. Advantage Engineering,
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 is also the public's case."

American

courts recognize a general right "to inspect and copy public
records

and

documents,

including

judicial

records

and

documents." Nixon v. Warner Comms., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597
(1978).
The Eleventh Circuit has noted, "The operation of the
courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of
utmost public concern and the 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." Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th
2

Cir. 2007)(internal citations omitted).

The court further

explained, "This right of access includes the right to inspect
and copy public records and documents.

This right of access

is not absolute, however [and] may be overcome by a showing of
good cause." Id.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution
also

provides

proceedings,

a

qualified

although

right

this

right

of
"has

access
a

to

more

trial
limited

application in the civil context than it does in the criminal
[context]." Chi. Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.,
263

F.3d

1304,

1310

(11th

Cir.

2001).

Where

this

constitutional right of access applies, any denial of access
requires a showing that it is necessitated by a compelling
governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to serve that
interest." Id.
Brett has not shown good cause to override the common law
and First Amendment rights of the public to review court
documents.

The Motion is accordingly denied.

The Clerk is

directed to file Brett's Complaint on the open record.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

Plaintiff Frank Brett's Motion to File this Case Under
Seal (Doc. # 1) is DENIED.
3

(2)

The Clerk is directed to file the Complaint on the open
record.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 26th

day of March, 2014.

Copies: All Parties of Record

4