Middleton v. Douglas County

Filing 39

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: The defendant's Motion to Seal (Filing No. 37 ) is denied. The plaintiff's Objection (Filing No. 38 ) is sustained. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (TCL )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
LINDA MIDDLETON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DOUGLAS COUNTY, NEBRASKA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:12CV19
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the defendant’s Motion to Seal (Filing No. 37).
The defendant states it seeks to seal the case because it “has been resolved and no other
matters remain that would prevent this Court from sealing this case.” The defendant did
not file a brief or provide other justification for sealing the case. The plaintiff opposes the
motion. See Filing No. 38.
A motion to seal “must state why sealing is required and whether redaction could
eliminate or reduce the need for sealing.” NECivR 7.5(a)(i); see also NECivR 5.3(c)(A)
(requiring movant to state need for restriction).

Under the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, “[f]or good cause, the court may . . . limit or prohibit a nonparty’s remote
electronic access to a document filed with the court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2; see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(c). The defendant fails to describe why it is necessary to seal or restrict
access to this case or any part of it. Additionally, the defendant fails to state from whom
the matter should be sealed. The defendant fails to provide good cause for sealing the
case. Upon consideration,
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

The defendant’s Motion to Seal (Filing No. 37) is denied.

2.

The plaintiff’s Objection (Filing No. 38) is sustained.

DATED this 21st day of February, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Thomas D. Thalken
United States Magistrate Judge