Evangelista v. Marcotte et al

Filing 44

Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf: ORDER entered. re 43 Assented to MOTION to Seal Document 32 Memorandum in Support of Motion, Exhibit 5 filed by Jason Fanion, Shane Marcotte, The City of Worcester, Jonathan Cotter, Carl Supernor, James Johnson, Daniel Fallon, III Accordingly, given the presumption of public access and thedefendants' failure to adequately justify sealing the Exhibit,defendants' Motion to Remove and Impound the Exhibit (Docket No.43) is hereby DENIED.(Hohler, Daniel)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CHARLES A. EVANGELISTA,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
v.
)
)
)
SHANE MARCOTTE, JASON FANION,
)
DANIEL FALLON III, JONATHAN
)
COTTER, JAMES JOHNSON, CARL
)
SUPERNOR, and CITY OF WORCESTER,)
Defendants.
)

C.A. No. 05-10311-MLW

ORDER
WOLF, D.J.

September 21, 2011

Defendants have filed an Assented-to Motion to Remove and
Impound Exhibit (the "Motion"). The Motion refers to an exhibit
submitted to the court by plaintiff Charles A. Evangelista on
August 16, 2006 (the "Exhibit"). The Exhibit contains the names,
addresses, and telephone numbers of approximately 225 people who
had alleged excessive use of force by Worcester Police Department
officers between 1989 and 1999.
Plaintiff obtained this list from an exhibit filed by the City
of Worcester in Schultz v. City of Worcester et al., C.A. No. 0240003(CBS), on December 16, 2005. The exhibit containing the
relevant information was not initially filed under seal in that
case. In addition, Evangelista did not file the Exhibit under seal
in this case. Nor did defendants assert that the information
included in the Exhibit was subject to the March 2, 2006 Protective
Order. Defendants had not requested that the Exhibit be sealed
until now.

Defendants

assert

that

the

information

included

in

the

Exhibit, specifically individuals' names, addresses, and phone
numbers, ordinarily would not be permitted to be filed on the
Public Access to Court Electronic Records ("PACER") system without
redaction. However, defendants' assertion is incorrect. In making
filings, parties are required to redact or exclude certain personal
data. See Local Rules of the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts Rule 5.3(A). Parties must redact the
first five numbers of an individual's social security number, the
names of minor children, the month and day of an individual's
birth, and all but the last four digits of financial account
numbers.

See

id.

Parties

are

not

required

to

redact

names,

addresses, or phone numbers in civil cases.
Moreover, there is a presumption of public access to judicial
records. See Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597
(1978). Indeed, plaintiff obtained the information included in the
Exhibit from what was then a public record in another case.
Accordingly, given the presumption of public access and the
defendants' failure to adequately justify sealing the Exhibit,
defendants' Motion to Remove and Impound the Exhibit (Docket No.
43) is hereby DENIED.

/s/ Mark L. Wolf
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE