Faller v. Pelosi et al
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
JAMES S. FALLER II,
NANCY PATRICIA PELQSI,
et al. ,
Before the Court is Plaintiff s Motion for Leave to File Under
For the reasons below.
Plaintiffs motion is
Although the motion requests the disclosure of various prejudices
his "Motion to Disclose Conflicts,
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
Plaintiff contends: (1) "[t]he instant matter is a situation that
"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."
common law right to inspect and copy judicial records."
States V. Rosenthal, 763 F.2d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing
Nixon V. Warner Commc^ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)).
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
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."
can justify sealing a document by showing good cause.
Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1310
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
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,
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.
480 F.3d at 1246.
Local Rule 79.7 outlines the procedures required for a party
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.
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."
Id. at (d).
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).
sufficient to warrant the sealing of Plaintiff's motion.
B. Harm to Affiants
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
result in an injury sufficiently serious to warrant protection."
Thomas v. Houston Healthcare Sys. Inc., No. 5:17-cv-386(MTT), 2019
Photochromic Lens Antitrust Litig., No. 8:10-MD-2173-T27EAJ, 2011
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
Court appreciates Plaintiff's consideration of the Court, legally
there is no justification for sealing the motion.
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
Plaintiff's pending motion shall remain unsealed.
ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this
day of October,
J. R?WfiMf^ALL,^HrEF JUDGE
UNITED/states DISTRICT COURT
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?