GREEN v. MCNEIL

Filing 65

ORDER DENYING 64 Motion to Seal filed by DANNY ALLEN GREEN. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE GARY R JONES on 5/31/2011. (jws)

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
DANNY ALLEN GREEN,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-204-MP-GRJ

WALTER A. MCNEIL,
Respondent.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Doc. 64, a motion styled as a “Motion To Seal
Previous Filing In Which Witness Names Show,” which the Court construes as a motion
to seal. Petitioner previously filed a motion (Doc. 62) that the Court ordered stricken
from the record. (Doc. 63.) In Petitioner’s motion to seal Petitioner requests the Court
to seal the previously filed motion because the motion contains “witness names that
should not be open to public viewing.” (Doc. 64 p. 1) Other than that statement, the
Petitioner does not offer any further reasons or any legal justification for sealing he
motion.
Sealing of court records is highly disfavored. Brown v. Advantage Engineering,
Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1015-16 (11th Cir. 1992). Records may only be sealed where a
party shows a compelling interest in doing so, and where the sealing is narrowly tailored
to effect that interest. Id. “[B]efore sealing a document, the district court must identify
and articulate ‘an overriding interest based on findings that [a seal] is essential to
preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The interest is to
be articulated along with findings specific enough that a reviewing court can determine
whether the [sealing] order was properly entered.’” Dees v. Hydradry, Inc., 706 F. Supp.

Page 2 of 2

2d 1227, 1245 (M.D. Fla. 2010)(quoting Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of
California, 464 U.S. 501, 510, 104 S.Ct. 819, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 (1984)).
Because Petitioner has failed to provide any explanation, reasons or grounds –
other than his assertion that the motion contains the names of witnesses – why this
document should be filed under seal, Petitioner’s motion is due to be denied.
Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is ORDERED that:
Petitioner’s “Motion To Seal Previous Filing In Which Witness Names Show”
(Doc. 64) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of May 2011.

s/Gary R. Jones
GARY R. JONES
United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 1:09-cv-204-MP-GRJ