Baranski v. United States of America

Filing 259

ORDER -{see Order for complete details}...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that for all future filings under seal, petitioner shall comply fully with the Courts Administrative Procedures, and shall contemporaneously serve a copy of sealed documents or motions to opposing counsel by means other than electronic notice through CM/ECF.. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 11/18/2015. (MRC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

KEITH BYRON BARANSKI,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:11-CV-123 CAS

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of petitioner Keith Byron Baranski’s Notice and
Certificate of Service (Doc. 258). Petitioner states that in compliance with docket text order 245,
he sent by email to counsel for the government “a copy of the subsequent revised draft of the
original Opposition that was substantially the same as the original along with copies of original
attachment and Motion For Leave to File Under Seal.” Petitioner continues, “Of course, following
the Court’s Order of November 17, 2015, (DN. 246), the documents originally filed are now
available on PACER to authorized entities.”
Petitioner’s response discloses a fundamental misunderstanding concerning sealed
documents in the CM/ECF electronic case filing system that must be corrected. Petitioner confuses
sealed documents with the separate category of documents that are not filed under seal, but to which
access is limited (e.g., to Court users and case participants). The Court’s Administrative Procedures
for Case Management/Electronic Case Filing explicitly state that access to sealed documents is
limited to Court users only:
Electronic Notice and Access to Sealed Filings; Service.
Upon filing a sealed motion or document, electronic notice goes ONLY to the
attorneys of record and indicates the document number; however, the document IS
NOT accessible from the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). The docket entry
appears for court users and all attorneys of record active in the case. ONLY Court

users CAN ACCESS OR VIEW the document from the system. The docket text will
read “SEALED MOTION” or “SEALED DOCUMENT.”
PLEASE NOTE: The attorney filing the sealed motion or sealed document
will have to serve opposing counsel by other means as service will not occur via the
CM/ECF System.
Admin. Proc. for CM/ECF, § VI.B. at 20. Thus, petitioner’s opposition to the government’s Motion
for Summary Judgment, filed under seal, is only available to the Court through CM/ECF, and not
to either party. This is true even after the Court directed the Clerk to docket the opposition in
accordance with appropriate procedures.1
In addition, it is not clear from petitioner’s Notice that he provided the government with the
exact opposition memorandum filed in this case. The Court has provided the government with a
paper copy of petitioner’s opposition memorandum and the attachment thereto, as filed by petitioner.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that for all future filings under seal, petitioner shall comply
fully with the Court’s Administrative Procedures, and shall contemporaneously serve a copy of
sealed documents or motions to opposing counsel by means other than electronic notice through
CM/ECF.

CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 18th day of November, 2015.

1

If either party in this case is able to access Document 247 through CM/ECF, they must
notify the Court immediately, as this would indicate a serious technical defect in sealed document
functionality.
2