Hesed-El v. Poff

Filing 13

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 11 Motion to Seal. Plaintiff chose to file this information into the public record when he commenced this lawsuit and has not shown good cause as to why it should be sealed. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 09/29/2018. (jlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
*

BRO T. HESED EL,

*
*

Plaintiff,

■k

*

V.

CV

118-079

*

DISTRICT CLERK SCOTT L.

*

POFF,

*

Defendant.

*

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to seal.
11.)

(Doc.

Plaintiff requests that the documents already filed in this

case be sealed to prevent embarrassment to the parties and protect
certain personal information.

Plaintiff filed this action on May 2, 2018, and simultaneously

sought to proceed in forma pauperis.

(Docs. 1, 2.)

The United

State Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in
forma

pauperis

and

screened

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (B) .

his

complaint

pursuant

to

Plaintiff alleged the District Court

Clerk Scott Poff improperly refused to enter a default judgment in
Plaintiff's prior case regarding a home loan and the District Judge
did not allow Plaintiff the necessary time to object to a Report

and Recommendation entered in the prior case.

found

these

allegations

to

be

without

The Magistrate Judge

merit

and

recommended

Plaintiff's claim be dismissed.

(Doc. 5 at 6.)

After Plaintiff

objected, the Court conduced a de novo review and adopted the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation without further comment.
9.)

(Doc.

Plaintiff has now made a motion to seal all the documents in

this case.

''^There is a common-law presumption that judicial records are

public documents."

Webb v. CVS Caremark Corp., 2011 WL 6743284,

at *1 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 23, 2011) (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc'n,
Inc.,

435

U.S.

589,

597

(1978);

Chicago

Tribune

Co.

Bridgestone/Firestone ,■ 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001) ) .

v.

^'*The

operations of the courts and the judicial conduct of judges are
matters of utmost public concern,

access to judicial proceedings,

and the common-law right of

an essential component of our

system of justice, is instrumental in securing the integrity of
the process."

Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245

(11th Cir. 2007)

(quotations omitted) .

A party can justify a document being sealed by showing good
cause.

Chicago Tribune Co.,

determined

by

balancing

the

263 F.3d at 1310.
historical

against the movant's privacy interests.
Graddick,

696 F.2d 796,

803

(11th Cir.

Good cause is

presumption

of

access

Id. at 1311; Newman v.
1983) .

Courts consider,

among other things: (a) whether allowing access would impair court
functions or harm legitimate privacy interests;

(b) the degree of

and likelihood of injury if the documents were made public;

(c)

the reliability of the information; (d) whether there will be an

opportunity to

respond

to the

information;

(e)

whether the

information concerns public officials or public concerns; and (f)

the availability of a less drastic alternative.

Romero, 480 F.3d

at 1246.

The Court's Local Rules establish the procedure for sealing
documents.

S.D. Ga. L.R. 79.7.

A ''person desiring to have any

matter placed under seal shall present a motion setting forth the

grounds why the matter presented should not be available for public
inspection." Id. Furthermore, "[t]he permanent sealing of a Court
record is not preferred and should be sought only where temporary

sealing is not adequate to protect the interest at stake." Id.
After reviewing the docket, the Court finds that Plaintiff
has failed to show good cause to seal all documents filed in this
case.

The only personal financial information included in the

docket are contained in Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma

pauperis. (Doc. 2.) However, contrary to Plaintiff's contention,
no tax identification number, personal address,^ or financial
account numbers are contained in that motion.

Further, motions to

proceed in forma pauperis are routinely filed and entered into the
public record in this Court.

Such documents are rarely, if ever,

sealed.

^ The only personal address appearing anywhere in the docket is Plaintiff's PO
Box, which was necessary for service of documents in the case and does not
reveal where Plaintiff resides.

Likewise, Plaintiff has not demonstrated the need to redact

portions of the docket.
proprietary

information,

should be redacted.

He contends certain trade secrets,
and

religious

intellectual

The Court disagrees.

property

Plaintiff choose to

file this information into the public record when he commenced
this lawsuit and has not shown good cause as to why it should be
sealed.

Upon due consideration. Plaintiff's motion to seal (doc. 11)
is DENIED.

ORDER ENTERED

at

Augusta,

Georgia,

this

day

of

September, 2018.

UNITED

HALL, QTHIEF JUDGE
States district court

SeUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA