HAAS v. BURLINGTON COUNTY

Filing 360

ORDER denying 329 plaintiff's "Motion to Seal" 322 Transcript. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider on 5/11/2018. (tf, )

[Doc. No. 329]
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
TAMMY MARIE HAAS and CONRAD
SCZCPANIAK, Individually and
on behalf of a Class of
Similarly Situated Individuals
Civil No. 08-1102 (NLH/JS)
Plaintiffs,
v.
BURLINGTON COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
O R D E R
This matter is before the Court on the “Motion to Seal”
(“motion”) [Doc. No. 329] filed by plaintiff, Tammy Marie Haas
(“plaintiff”). Plaintiff seeks to seal the transcript of the
proceedings held on March 13, 2017 before this Court [Doc. No.
322]. The Court received opposition from counsel for co-plaintiff,
Conrad

Szczpaniak

[Doc.

No.

332].

The

Court

exercises

its

discretion to decide the motion without oral argument. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 78; L. Civ. R. 78.1. For the reasons to be discussed,
plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
It is well-established there exists “a common law public right
of access to judicial proceedings and records.” In re Cendant
Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). Thus,
a party seeking to seal information associated with a judicial
proceeding must demonstrate “good cause.” Securimetrics, Inc. v.
1

Iridian Techs., Inc., C.A. No. 03-4394 (RBK), 2006 WL 827889, at
*2 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2006). Good cause requires “a particularized
showing that disclosure will cause a ‘clearly defined and serious
injury to the party seeking closure.’” Id. (quoting Pansy v.
Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786 (3d Cir. 1994)).
In this District, motions to seal are governed by Local Civil
Rule 5.3(c) which requires the moving party to describe: (a) the
nature of the materials or proceedings at issue; (b) the legitimate
private or public interest which warrants the relief sought; (c)
the clearly defined and serious injury that would result if the
relief sought is not granted; and (d) why a less restrictive
alternative to the relief sought is not available. In particular,
“[b]road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples
or articulated reasoning” cannot satisfy the required showing of
“clearly defined and serious injury.”
(citation

omitted).

Furthermore,

“it

Pansy, 23 F.3d at 786
is

well-settled

that

a

party’s classification of material as protected or confidential
does not automatically satisfy the criteria for sealing pursuant
to Local Civil Rule 5.3.” In re: Benicar (Olmesarten) Prods. Liab.
Litig., C.A. No. 15-2606 (RBK/JS), 2016 WL 266353, at *67 (D.N.J.
Jan. 21, 2016).
The Court now turns to plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff seeks to
seal the entirety of the transcript from the March 13, 2017 hearing
before this Court. The March 13, 2017 hearing concerned, among
other matters, plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac
2

Vice” [Doc. No. 276] seeking admission of Susan Chana Lask, Esq.1
Plaintiff

contends

information

the

concerning

transcript
an

ethics

“references
grievance

in

confidential
New

Jersey”

involving Ms. Lask. Longo Decl. at ¶ 4. Plaintiff avers that the
information is confidential in nature and “no less restrictive
alternative is available to prevent the defined and serious injury
to plaintiff and counsel for plaintiff.” Mot. at ¶ 8. In an
opposition

letter

filed

by

counsel

for

co-plaintiff

Conrad

Szczpaniak, counsel contends there is no basis to seal any portion
of the transcript because the information was required to be
disclosed as part of Ms. Lask’s application to be admitted pro hac
vice. October 9, 2017 Opposition Letter [Doc. No. 332].
The

Court

has

reviewed

the

subject

transcript

and

the

Declaration of Sonya M. Longo, Esq. (“Longo Decl.”) [Doc. No. 3291] filed in support of the motion. The Court concludes that
plaintiff fails to meet her burden under L. Civ. R. 5.3 and the
applicable case law. This is so because plaintiff seeks to seal
information that is already part of the public record as it was
filed on the public docket. For example, plaintiff discusses the
New Jersey ethics grievance she seeks to maintain as confidential
in her own papers submitted in support of the application for
admission pro hac vice. See Pl.’s Rep. Br. [Doc. No. 288] at 1013. Importantly, plaintiff did not file those documents under

The Court granted plaintiff’s motion with conditions and Ms. Lask
was admitted pro hac vice. [Doc. No. 297].
1

3

temporary seal nor did she seek to seal them at any time. When
information has previously been made available to the public,
sealing such information is not appropriate. See Lopez-Siguenza v.
Roddy, C.A. No. 13-2005 (JBS/JS), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69553, at
*16 (May 27, 2016)(denying a motion to seal when the information
sought to be redacted had already been disclosed in the Court’s
previous opinion). Accordingly, there is no basis for redacting
and sealing the requested information pursuant to L. Civ. R. 5.3
and the applicable case law. There is no legitimate public or
private interest which warrants the relief sought nor is there any
clearly defined and serious injury that would result if the motion
is not granted. The information plaintiff seeks to seal was filed
on the docket and became publicly available before the hearing at
issue even occurred.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT

IS

HEREBY

ORDERED

this

11th

day

of

May,

2018,

that

plaintiff’s “Motion to Seal” [Doc. No. 329] is DENIED; and it is
further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to unseal the
subject transcript [Doc. No. 322].

/s/ Joel Schneider
JOEL SCHNEIDER
United States Magistrate Judge

4