Kreamer v Kistler

Filing 19

ORDER denying 15 Sealed Motion for Leave of Court to File Motion Under Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 5/28/2015. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JARRED KREAMER
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 14-447-SDD-SCR
CAPTAIN STEVEN KISTLER
RULING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION UNDER SEAL1
Before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion for Leave of Court
to File Under Seal.

Record document number 15.

Plaintiff seeks leave to file under a seal a Motion to
Disqualify counsel for the defendant and a Memorandum in Support of
Motion

to

Disqualify.

Plaintiff

argued

in

his

supporting

memorandum that the proposed Motion to Disqualify should be filed
under seal because the proposed Motion to Disqualify and the
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Disqualify contain “sensitive,
attorney-client information that should not be open to the public.”
However, a review of the proposed Motion to Disqualify and its
supporting

memorandum

did

not

confirm

the

plaintiff’s

representation that the disqualification motion or the supporting
memorandum contain information protected by the attorney-client
privilege.

At best, the supporting memorandum suggests that such

information may be revealed if the court agrees to hold an in

1

To avoid filing this ruling under seal, it does not include
any specific factual information contained in the plaintiff
proposed Motion to Disqualify and the Memorandum in Support of
Motion to Disqualify.

camera meeting with the plaintiff to allow him to “fully explain
the depth and rational for his concern without prejudicing the
case.”2
It is not apparent from the disqualification motion or its
supporting memorandum that any of the cases cited by the plaintiff
involved a district court sealing the disqualification motion or
holding an in camera hearing with the moving party.

Nor has the

plaintiff show that sealing the disqualification motion is in the
public interest.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s Motion for Leave of Court to File
Under Seal is denied.

However, the plaintiff’s

proposed

Motion

to Disqualify and the Memorandum in Support of Motion to Disqualify
shall remain under seal through June 15, 2015, which is when the
time for the plaintiff to object to this ruling will expired.3

If

no objection is filed, the clerk of court will be directed to
unseal

and

file

the

proposed

Motion

to

Disqualify

Memorandum in Support of Motion to Disqualify.

and

the

If an objection is

timely filed, the proposed Motion to Disqualify and the Memorandum

2

Record document number 15-4 (sealed), p. 7. Plaintiff also
represented that his testimony taken in the related case, which is
Childs v. City of Denham Springs, CV 12-795-JJB-MJU, “was not made
public record.” Id. at 3, note 5. However, record in that case is
not sealed and the minute entry from the hearing is not sealed
either. CV 12-795, record document number 9. While there is no
transcript of the plaintiff’s testimony filed in that case, nothing
in the minute entry indicates that the plaintiff’s testimony was
sealed.
3

Rule 72(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.
2

in Support of Motion to Disqualify shall remain under seal pending
the district judge’s ruling on the objection. This ruling does not
prohibit the plaintiff from withdrawing the Motion for Leave of
Court to File Under Seal in its entirety and filing a motion to
disqualify defendant’s counsel.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, May 28, 2015.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3