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