Roy v. NH Department of Corrections, Commissioner et al

Filing 12

ORDER Directing Clerk to Make Service / ORDER denying 7 Motion to Seal "Exhibit FF". So Ordered by District Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(vln)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Steven J. Roy
v.

Civil No. 13-cv-438-PB

New Hampshire Department of
Corrections et al.1

O R D E R
Before the court is pro se prisoner Steven J. Roy’s
complaint (doc. no. 1), and addenda he has filed thereto (doc.
nos. 4-5).

Also pending is Roy’s motion (doc. no. 7) to seal

Document No. 6, and his motion for a preliminary injunction
(doc. no. 8), seeking to enjoin copyright infringement.
I.

Motion to Seal
Roy seeks to seal Document No. 6 (“Exhibit FF”), which

consists of an affidavit and attached exhibits that Roy asserts
are evidence that defendants have infringed on Roy’s copyright
in certain software.

In the complaint and in the motion for a

preliminary injunction (doc. nos. 1 and 8), Roy has cited to

1

Roy names as defendants: the New Hampshire Department of
Corrections (“DOC”); DOC Commissioner William Wrenn; DOC staff
member Christopher Kench; New Hampshire State Prison (“NHSP”)
Warden Richard Gerry; NHSP Maj. Jon Fouts; NHSP Investigators
Joel Dinsmore and FNU Newcomb; NHSP Lt. James Brown; and
(former) NHSP GraniteCor Industries Director Fred Nichols.

“Exhibit FF” without revealing all of its contents.

The clerk’s

office has separately docketed and provisionally sealed the
relevant document, pending a ruling on the motion to seal.
In considering a motion to seal, the court balances the
public’s right of access against the competing private interests
at stake in a particular case.

See FTC v. Standard Fin. Mgmt.

Corp., 830 F.2d 404, 408 (1st Cir. 1987).

The party seeking to

seal documents bears the burden of persuasion.
11.

See id. at 410-

The common-law presumption of public access to judicial

records extends to the documents at issue.

See id.

Exhibit FF

does not contain the type of information that might warrant a
seal.

See id. at 411-12.

Roy’s assertions about the potential

for witness harassment or retaliation are speculative.

The

court, therefore, DENIES the motion to seal (doc. no. 7), and
directs that Document No. 6 be removed from the docket, in
accordance with LR 83.12, unless Roy timely notifies the clerk’s
office that he intends to refile Document No. 6 as is, without
redactions or any seal.
II.

Service
For reasons stated in the report and recommendation this

date, Roy’s complaint shall be served upon defendants Nichols,
Wrenn, Gerry, and the New Hampshire Department of Corrections.
The clerk’s office shall serve the New Hampshire Office of the
2

Attorney General (“AG”), as provided in the Agreement on
Acceptance of Service, electronic copies of: this order; the
report and recommendation issued this date; the complaint and
addenda (doc. nos. 1 and 4-5); and both the motion for a
preliminary injunction (doc. no. 9) and the addendum to that
motion (doc. no. 10).
Within thirty days from receipt of these materials, the AG
will submit an Acceptance of Service notice to the court
specifying whether all of the defendants have authorized the AG
to receive service on their behalf.

When the AG files the

Acceptance of Service, service will be deemed made on the last
day of the thirty-day period for all defendants who accept AG
representation.
If any defendants do not authorize the AG to receive
service on their behalf, or the AG declines to represent any of
the defendants, the AG shall, within thirty days from receipt of
the aforementioned materials, provide to the court the last
known address of those defendants.

In that event, the clerk’s

office is instructed to complete and issue a summons for each of
those defendants, using the last known address provided, and
forward the summonses, along with the above-listed documents, to
the United States Marshal for the District of New Hampshire, to

3

complete service on those defendants in accordance with this
order and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) and 4(e).
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to seal (doc. no. 7)
is DENIED.

Fourteen days after the date of this order, the

clerk’s office shall remove the provisional seal from Document
No. 6.

Unless Roy notifies the clerk’s office within the same

fourteen-day time period that he intends to refile Document No.
6 as is, without redactions or any seal, the clerk’s office
shall return Document No. 6 to Roy and remove it from the
docket.

See LR 83.12.

The clerk is further directed to effect service of the
complaint upon defendants Nichols, Wrenn, Gerry, and the New
Hampshire Department of Corrections, as specified above.
Defendants shall answer or otherwise plead within twenty-one
days of service.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A).

Defendants may file an objection to Roy’s motion for a
preliminary injunction within thirty days of the date of this
order.

Roy may file his reply thereto within fourteen days from

the date of service of defendants’ objection, addressing only
those issues raised in defendants’ objection and exhibits.

4

The

court will determine whether to schedule a hearing on the motion
(doc. no. 8) upon receipt of the parties’ submissions.
SO ORDERED.

__________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States Magistrate Judge
December 16, 2013
cc:

Steven J. Roy, pro se

LBM:nmd

5