Calderon Jimenez v. Cronen et al
Judge Mark L. Wolf: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (Bono, Christine)
Case 1:18-cv-10225-MLW Document 9 Filed 02/07/18 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
LILIAN PAHOLA CALDERON
C.A. No. 18-10225-MLW
KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, ET AL.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
February 7, 2018
Calderon Jimenez seeks immediate release from detention by United
States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") and a stay of
her removal from the United States until the issues concerning
allowed to remain in
permanently are finally determined.
Therefore, "unless the court
orders otherwise," there are limits to remote access to electronic
filings in this case imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Under Rule 5.2(c)(1) the parties and their attorneys have
remote electronic access to the complete
record of the case.
However, under Rule 5.2(c)(2), "[r]emote electronic access by non-
parties is limited to the docket and the written dispositions of
the court unless the court orders otherwise." Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2,
Advisory Committee Note to 2007 Amendment.
Therefore, absent a
Case 1:18-cv-10225-MLW Document 9 Filed 02/07/18 Page 2 of 4
court order, non-parties are required to come to the courthouse to
obtain access to the full record.
As the First Circuit has written:
In Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.,. 435 U.S. 589
(1978), the Supreme Court acknowledged that "the courts
of this country recognize a general right to inspect and
copy public records and documents, including judicial
records and documents." Id. at 597 (footnotes omitted).
"materials on which a court relies in determining the
Inc., 805 F.2d 1, 13 (1st Cir. 1986).
F.T.C. V. Standard Financial Management, 830 F.2d 404, 408 (1st
The First Circuit explained:
Public access to judicial records and documents allows
the citizenry to "monitor the functioning of our courts,
thereby insuring quality, honesty and respect for our
legal system." In the Matter of Continental Illinois
Securities Litigation, 732 F.2d 1302, 1308 (7th Cir.
accessible is accentuated in cases where the government
is a party: in such circumstances, the public's right to
know what the executive branch is about coalesces with
the concomitant right of the citizenry to appraise the
Id. at 410.
Widespread public interest in this case, which was filed on
February 5, 2018, is already manifest in articles in the national
media, and in Rhode Island and Maine as well.^ In addition.
1 See, e.g., Christine Powell, Guatemalan Mom's Removal Barred
During Detention Dispute, Law360.com (Feb. 6, 2018), available at
Federal Judge Blocks Removal of Foreign Born Mother of 2 Young
Children, Portland Press Herald (Feb. 6, 2018), available at
Case 1:18-cv-10225-MLW Document 9 Filed 02/07/18 Page 3 of 4
petitioner's lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union of
Massachusetts (the "ACLUM") have made her petition and one but not
both of the court's orders available on its website. See ACLUM,
ACLU Sues to Release Mother of Two from ICE Detention, ACLUM.org,
mother-two-ice-detention/. The foregoing documents are not sealed.
In view of the presumption of public access to documents on
which judicial decisions are based, the heightened importance of
making court files accessible where the government is a party, and
the difficulty that some evidently interested individuals and
organizations would have in coming to the courthouse in Boston,
Massachusetts to obtain access to the record of this case, the
court finds that it is appropriate to authorize all persons to
have remote electronic access to the full record of this case,
subject to appropriate redactions.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
and their attorneys shall have
0l©ctronic access to any part of the file in this case, including
the administrative record.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(c)(1).
Supporters Call for Humanitarian Release of R.I. Woman Held by
ICE, Providence Journal (Jan. 30, 2018), available at
Case 1:18-cv-10225-MLW Document 9 Filed 02/07/18 Page 4 of 4
Any other person shall have remote electronic access to:
(a) the docket in this case, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(c)(2)(A); (b)
each opinion, order or judgment of the court,
see Fed. R. Civ. P.
5.2(c)(2)(B); and (c) the public record of this case.
believes should not be part of the public record, see, e.g., Fed.
R. Civ. P. 5.2(a) and United States v. Kravetz, 706 F.3d 47, 61-
64 (1st Cir. 2013), it may file the submission under seal with a
motion to seal and a redacted version for the public record.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(d); Rule 7.2 of the Local Rules of the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Any motion for reconsideration of this Order shall be
filed by February 12, 2018.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
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?