Stone v. Louisiana Department of Revenue

Filing 7

ORDER AND REASONS denying 6 MOTION to Seal Case filed by Joanne Stone. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/1/2014.(blg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOANNE STONE

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 12-2182

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE
ORDER AND REASONS

SECTION I

Before the Court is a motion1 to seal this case filed by plaintiff, Joanne Stone. Plaintiff
believes that the record of the existence of this lawsuit “is preventing [her] from employment,
getting jobs and working.”2 She requests that the Court seal the entire record of this case to prevent
these perceived effects and because “[c]onfidential information exists in the files.”3
There is “a strong public interest in maintaining accurate records in civil cases” and “in free
and open access to court documents.” McGough v. Corrections Corp. of Am., No. 1:07-0039, 2008
WL 313064, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 1, 2008) (denying motion to expunge defendant’s name from
civil lawsuit so defendant would not have to disclose existence of lawsuit). Thus, “[t]he Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure demonstrate a policy in favor of full record retention.” See Alkaabi v.
DHS, No. 09-5476, 2010 WL 4668337, at *1 (E.D. La. Nov. 5, 2010) (Fallon, J.) (citing Fed. R. Civ.
P. 79(a)(1)) (denying motion to expunge records that plaintiff had filed a lawsuit).
Although plaintiff asserts that she is presently experiencing adverse consequences as a result
of the continued existence of a record of this lawsuit, under these circumstances the Court does not

1

R. Doc. No. 6. Plaintiff filed a similar motion to seal a related case. See Stone v. La. Dep’t of
Revenue, No. 12-3022 (E.D. La. Dec. 20, 2012), R. Doc. No. 47.
2
R. Doc. No. 6, at 1.
3
R. Doc. No. 6-1, at 1.
1

find that outweighs the general principle that court records should be public, accessible, and
unsealed.4 Nor has plaintiff satisfied Local Rule 5.6 by articulating what specific confidential
information should be sealed, or why sealing is necessary or authorized by governing case law. See
LR 5.6(B). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

New Orleans, Louisiana, October 1, 2014.
________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

The Court expresses no opinion whether plaintiff may pursue some other relief based on her
belief that potential employers have declined to hire her because of her prior litigation.
2