MOBLEY v. DENHAM

Filing 9

ORDER denying 3 Motion to Seal Case signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE GARY R JONES on 10/3/11. (tss)

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
RAY CHRIS MOBLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 5:11-cv-278-MP-GRJ

SAM DENHAM, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER UNSEALING CASE
Plaintiff initiated this case by filing a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C § 1983, a motion for leave to proceed as a pauper, and a motion to seal this
case. Plaintiff alleges violations of various constitutional rights in connection with his
2005 Bay County arrest and imprisonment on criminal charges. Plaintiff’s motion to
seal alleges that the defendant law enforcement officers have conspired to cover up
violations of his constitutional rights, and that defendants might retaliate against him for
filing this case. The Clerk opened this matter as a sealed case.
There is a “common-law right of access to judicial records.” Nixon v. Warner
Communications, 435 U.S. 589, 597, 98 S. Ct. 1306, 1311, 55 L. Ed. 2d 570 (1978);
Wilson v. American Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568, 1570 (11th Cir. 1985) (“There is no
question that a common law right of access exists as to civil proceedings.”); Chicago
Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001) (“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.”). This right,
however, is not absolute. Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1311. The standard governing
the right of access as it applies to particular documents requires the court to balance

Page 2 of 3

the competing interests of confidentiality and the right of public access on a case by
case basis. Id. at 1312, 1313–15; Jessup v. Luther, 277 F.3d 926, 928 (7th Cir. 2002)
(“The interest in secrecy is weighed against the competing interests case by case.”);
see also Jaufre v. Taylor, 351 F. Supp. 2d 514, 516 (E.D. La. 2005) (“To determine
whether to disclose or seal a judicial record, the Court must balance the public’s
common law right of access against interests favoring non-disclosure.”) (citing S.E.C. v.
Van Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d 845, 849 (5th Cir. 1993)). “[T]he party seeking to
overcome the presumption of access bears the burden of showing that the interest in
secrecy outweighs the presumption.” Jaufre, 351 F. Supp. 2d at 516 (citing Leucadia,
Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Technologies, Inc., 998 F.2d 157, 165 (3d Cir. 1993)). In
balancing the public interest in accessing court documents against a party’s interest in
keeping the information confidential, courts consider, among other factors, whether
allowing access would impair court functions or harm legitimate privacy interests, the
degree of and likelihood of injury if made public, the reliability of the information,
whether there will be an opportunity to respond to the information, whether the
information concerns public officials or public concerns, and the availability of a less
onerous alternative to sealing the documents. See In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litig.,
820 F.2d 352, 356 (11th Cir. 1987); Shingara v. Skiles, 420 F.3d 301, 305–06 (3d Cir.
2005); United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050–51 (2d Cir. 1995). A party’s
privacy or proprietary interest in information sometimes overcomes the interest of the
public in accessing the information. See Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.
After conducting the balancing test described supra, the undersigned concludes
that Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating a privacy interest that outweighs
the presumption of public access to court documents. First, no court functions would
Case No: 5:11-cv-278-MP-GRJ

Page 3 of 3

be impaired by allowing public access. Second, this litigation clearly concerns public
officials and public concerns. Third, the nature of Plaintiff’s allegations do not suggest
that public access would harm Plaintiff’s legitimate privacy interests. Fourth, despite
Plaintiff’s conclusional allegation that he will suffer retaliation if law enforcement
agencies become aware of this litigation, he has not shown that there is a likelihood of
such retaliation or that the harm from such retaliation would be irreparable.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 3) is DENIED, and the Clerk is directed to unseal
this case.
DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of October 2011.

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

Case No: 5:11-cv-278-MP-GRJ