Altman v. United States Of America

Filing 2

ORDER granting Petitioner's 1 Motion to Seal Document. The Clerk is hereby DIRECTED to file Petitioner's § 2255 Motion and brief in support UNDER SEAL until further Order of this Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 10/21/2016. (ca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
BRUNSWICK DIVISION
ROBERT TROY ALTMAN,
Petitioner,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:15-cv-141

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
(Case No. 2:14-cr-15)
Respondent.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion to File Under Seal, (doc. 1). For
the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion.
The right of access to judicial records pursuant to common law is well-established. See
Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); see also Brown v. Advantage
Eng’g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992). This right extends to the inspection and the
copying of court records and documents. See Nixon, 435 U.S. at 597. The right to access,
however, is not absolute. See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk Cty., 457
U.S. 596, 598 (1982). When deciding whether to grant a party’s motion to seal, the court is
required to balance the historical presumption of access against any significant interests raised by
the party seeking to file under seal. See Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263
F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001); Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796, 803 (11th Cir. 1983). In
balancing the interests, courts consider, among other things: 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. Romero v. Drummond Co.,

Inc., 480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2005). Additionally, “[a] party’s privacy or proprietary
interest in information sometimes overcomes the interest of the public in accessing the
information.” Id. (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.)
This Court’s Local Rule 79.7 sets forth procedures for a party to request that documents
be filed under seal. This Court does not allow the automatic filing of documents under seal.
Rather, 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.” Local
R. 79.7. If the Court denies the Motion to Seal, the Clerk of the Court shall return the materials
which the person sought to file under seal, and the person then has the option of filing the
materials on the Court’s open docket. Id.
Here, Petitioner has shown good cause for filing his Section 2255 Motion and brief in
support under seal. Plaintiff has established that sealing these records is necessary for the
preservation of his safety, as those records contain information concerning his cooperation and
assistance to the government, which implicates other criminal defendants. Having reviewed
these records, the Court finds that the need to seal these records outweighs the public’s interest in
accessing them. For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion to Seal, (doc. 1).
The Clerk of Court is hereby DIRECTED to file Petitioner’s Section 2255 Motion and brief in
support UNDER SEAL until further Order of this Court.
SO ORDERED, this 21st day of October, 2016.

R. STAN BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

2