Calderon Jimenez v. Cronen et al

Filing 9

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

JIMENEZ,

Petitioner,
C.A. No. 18-10225-MLW

V.

KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, ET AL.,

Respondents.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WOLF, D.J.
Pursuant

February 7, 2018
to

28

U.S.C.

§2241,

petitioner

Lilian

Pahola

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
whether

she

should

be

allowed to remain in

permanently are finally determined.

the

United

States

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
5.2(c).

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.

Id.

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).

The

privilege

extends,

in

the

first

instance,

to

"materials on which a court relies in determining the

litigants'

substantive

rights." Anderson

v.

Cryovac,

Inc., 805 F.2d 1, 13 (1st Cir. 1986).
F.T.C. V. Standard Financial Management, 830 F.2d 404, 408 (1st

Cir. 1987).

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.

1984).

The

appropriateness

of

making

court

files

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
judicial branch.
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
https://www.Iaw360.com/articles/1009773/guatemalan-mom-sremoval-barred-during-detention-dispute;
Jennifer
McDermott,
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,

available

at

https://aclum.org/uncategorized/aclu-sues-release-

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:

1.

The

parties

and their attorneys shall have

remote

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).

https://www.pressherald.com/2018/02/06/federal-judge-blocksremoval-of-foreign-born-mother-of-two/;
G.
Wayne
Miller,
Supporters Call for Humanitarian Release of R.I. Woman Held by
ICE, Providence Journal (Jan. 30, 2018), available at

http://www.providencejournal.com/news/20180130/supporters-cal1for-humanitarian-release-of-ri-woman-held-by-ice.

Case 1:18-cv-10225-MLW Document 9 Filed 02/07/18 Page 4 of 4

2.

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.
3.

If

a

submission

includes

information

that

a

party

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.

See

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.

4.

Any motion for reconsideration of this Order shall be

filed by February 12, 2018.

{
UNITED STATES DISTRICT

JUD(fe