Roughani v Hennepin County et al

Filing 18

ORDER: (1) Plaintiff Sina Roughani's Motion to Waive Discovery (ECF No. 4 ) is DENIED; (2) Plaintiff Sina Roughani's Motion for Sealing (ECF No. 8 ) is DENIED; and (3) The Court directs the Clerk of Court to unseal this matter. (Written Opinion) Signed by Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster on 8/27/2024. (MEH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Sina Roughani,

Case No. 24-cv-3214 (NEB/DJF)
Plaintiff,

v.
Hennepin County and Sarah McLaren, Hennepin
County Attorney,

ORDER

Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Sina Roughani’s self-styled Motion to Waive
Discovery (ECF No. 4) and self-styled Motion for Sealing (ECF No. 8.) For the reasons set forth
below, the Court denies both motions.
I.

Background
Mr. Roughani filed a complaint under seal on August 9, 2024 (“Complaint”) (ECF No. 1).

He brings claims against Hennepin County and Hennepin County Attorney Sarah McLaren, which
appear to allege: violations of the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments; violations of
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”);
and various common law torture and fraud claims (ECF No. 1 at 3-4). Defendants have not yet
responded to Mr. Roughani’s Complaint, but they opposed both motions. (See ECF Nos. 13, 16.)
II.

Motion to Waive Discovery
Mr. Roughani seeks to “waive discovery and proceed to trial at an accelerated schedule

considering the overwhelming evidence proving all elements the underlying ADA and torture claim,
fraud, and everything described that were already discovered and submitted to the court and
[Defendants] insufficiently defended themselves in an investigation on the basis of no evidence but

were defeated with their own discovery.” (ECF No. 4.) He does not provide any factual or legal
support for his request. (See id.)
Although Mr. Roughani is representing himself pro se in this matter, he is still subject to the
same procedural and legal standards that govern attorneys. Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th
Cir. 1984) (citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834–35 n. 46 (1975) (“pro se litigants are not
excused from failing to comply with substantive and procedural law.”) The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure govern discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. While the Rules do provide for certain
stipulated or court-ordered exceptions to streamline the discovery process, they do not allow the
Court to waive discovery entirely unless all parties agree and there is a sufficient record already
available. See id. This case is still in its early stages, no fact record exists in this matter, and
Defendants do not agree to waive discovery. Absent any basis in law to grant Mr. Roughani’s
request, the Court denies his Motion to Waive Discovery (ECF No. 4).
II.

Motion for Sealing
Mr. Roughani asks the Court to seal this case in its entirety because “it involves torture” and

may identify “content regarding proof of endorsement of vile ideologies.” (ECF No. 8 at 1.) The
parties may seal documents in a civil case “only as provided by statute or rule, or with leave of
court.” L.R. 5.6(a)(1). “There is a common-law right of access to judicial records.” IDT Corp. v.
eBay, 709 F.3d 1220, 1222–23 (8th Cir. 2013) (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435
U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). Notwithstanding, the right of access is not absolute and requires courts to
balance the competing interests of public access against the legitimate interests of maintaining the
confidentiality of the information sought to be sealed. Id. at 1123. “[T]he weight to be given to the
presumption of [public] access must be governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise
of Article III judicial power and resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal

2

courts.” Id. at 1224 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d. Cir. 1995)).
Mr. Roughani’s vague assertion that this matter “involves torture” and may identify
“endorsement of vile ideologies” fails to identify any colorable legal justification for sealing the
judicial records in this matter. (See ECF No. 8.) The Court finds no basis for depriving the public of
its right to access the records in this case and thus denies Mr. Roughani’s Motion for Sealing (ECF
No. 8).
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff Sina Roughani’s Motion to Waive Discovery (ECF No. 4) is DENIED;

2.

Plaintiff Sina Roughani’s Motion for Sealing (ECF No. [8]) is DENIED; and

3.

The Court directs the Clerk of Court to unseal this matter.

Dated: August 27, 2024

s/ Dulce J. Foster
DULCE J. FOSTER
United States Magistrate Judge

3