Faller v. Pelosi et al
Filing
40
ORDER denying 35 Motion to Seal. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 10/14/2020. (pts)
Case 1:20-cv-00002-JRH-BKE Document 40 Filed 10/14/20 Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
JAMES S. FALLER II,
*
*
Plaintiff,
*
*
V.
*
CV 120-002
■k
NANCY PATRICIA PELQSI,
et al. ,
*
*
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff s Motion for Leave to File Under
Seal.
(Doc.
35. )
For the reasons below.
Plaintiffs motion is
DENIED.
I.
Plaintiff
for
the
requests
Court
prejudices."
to
(Mot.
that
reveal
for
DISCUSSION
the
Court
seal
potential
Leave
to
Plaintiff s
conflicts,
File
Under
"motion
biases
Seal,
Doc.
and
35. )
Although the motion requests the disclosure of various prejudices
and
biases,
recuse.
the
Before
Court
the
interprets
Court
ruled on
his "Motion to Disclose Conflicts,
public docket.
(Doc.
39. )
the
document
this motion.
as
a
motion
Plaintiff
to
filed
Prejudice and or Bias" on the
Case 1:20-cv-00002-JRH-BKE Document 40 Filed 10/14/20 Page 2 of 5
Within his motion to file under seal. Plaintiff offers vague
justifications
for
sealing
the
motion
and
attached
exhibits.
Plaintiff contends: (1) "[t]he instant matter is a situation that
arose
by
egregious
misconduct
of
government
officials";
(2)
"affirmations from a judge and a high official" are included with
the motion and "there is substantial likely hood [sic] that threats
and or substantial harm may come to the affiants if they are
revealed"; and (3) "there are multiple issues in the instant motion
which could cause embarrassment to the Court."
The
Eleventh
Circuit
has
long
recognized
a
"presumptive
common law right to inspect and copy judicial records."
United
States V. Rosenthal, 763 F.2d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing
Nixon V. Warner Commc^ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)).
"The
operations 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., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245
(11th Cir. 2007) (citation and internal citation omitted).
However, the "right of access is not absolute."
Id.
can justify sealing a document by showing good cause.
A party
Chicago
Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1310
(11th
Cir.
2001).
Good
cause
is
determined
by balancing
the
historical presumption of right to access against the movant's
Case 1:20-cv-00002-JRH-BKE Document 40 Filed 10/14/20 Page 3 of 5
privacy interests.
Id. at 1311; Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796,
803 (11th Cir. 1983).
Courts consider, among other things: whether allowing access
would impair court functions or harm legitimate privacy interests,
the
degree
reliability
of
and
of
the
likelihood
of
information,
injury
whether
if
made
there
public,
will
be
the
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.
Romero,
480 F.3d at 1246.
Local Rule 79.7 outlines the procedures required for a party
to
request
that
documents
be
filed
under
seal.
"Any
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."
LR 79.7(b), SDGa.
"The
party seeking to have any matter placed under seal must rebut the
presumption of the openness derived from the First Amendment by
showing that closure is essential to preserve some higher interest
and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest."
Moreover,
"[t]he
permanent
sealing
of
a
Court
Id. at (d).
record
is
not
preferred and should be sought only where temporary sealing is not
adequate to protect the interest at stake."
Id. at (e).
Case 1:20-cv-00002-JRH-BKE Document 40 Filed 10/14/20 Page 4 of 5
A. Underlying Conduct
At the outset, Plaintiff contends that the motion merits
sealing because "the instant matter is a situation that arose by
egregious misconduct of government officials."
File Under Seal, 1 2.)
(Mot. for Leave to
Plaintiff cites no case law or legal
authority justifying sealing the motion for this reason. Plaintiff
has failed to meet his burden as required under LR 79.7(d).
the
alleged
underlying
conduct
itself,
without
more,
Thus,
is
not
sufficient to warrant the sealing of Plaintiff's motion.
B. Harm to Affiants
Plaintiff's
second
argument
is
likewise
unconvincing.
Plaintiff_asserts "[d]ue to the type and kind of work the Plaintiff
has engaged in for many years, there is a substantial likely hood
[sic] that threats and or substantial harm may come to the affiants
if they are revealed."
(Mot. for Leave to File Under Seal, SI 3.)
Again, Plaintiff fails to cite any case law or legal authority to
support his argument.
Additionally, when alleging harm as the
basis for sealing. Plaintiff is required to "make a particular and
specific
demonstration
of
fact
showing
that
disclosure
would
result in an injury sufficiently serious to warrant protection."
Thomas v. Houston Healthcare Sys. Inc., No. 5:17-cv-386(MTT), 2019
WL
5850547,
at
*2
(M.D.
Ga.
May
24,
2019)
(quoting
In
re:
Photochromic Lens Antitrust Litig., No. 8:10-MD-2173-T27EAJ, 2011
WL
13141945,
at
*1
(M.D.
Fla.
June
9,
2011))
("[C]onclusory
Case 1:20-cv-00002-JRH-BKE Document 40 Filed 10/14/20 Page 5 of 5
assertions of possible harm, such as those stated by the parties,
do not show good cause.").
Here, Plaintiff has failed to assert
any specific injury.
C. Embarrassment: of the Court
Finally, Plaintiff argues there are multiple issues in the
motion
that
could
cause
embarrassment
to
the
Court.
While
the
Court appreciates Plaintiff's consideration of the Court, legally
there is no justification for sealing the motion.
II. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has failed to analyze the balancing test in Romero
and overcome the common-law right of access by showing good cause.
For the foregoing reasons. Plaintiff's motion to seal (Doc. 35) is
DENIED.
Plaintiff's pending motion shall remain unsealed.
ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this
day of October,
2020.
J. R?WfiMf^ALL,^HrEF JUDGE
UNITED/states DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHgRN
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
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?