RUIZ v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al

Filing 160

MEMORANDUM, OPINION & ORDER Directing parties to file a motion to seal within 5 days of this Order, etc. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 3/5/2020. (rss, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MARIANITO RUIZ,
Plaintiff,

1:15-cv-3304 (NLH) (JS)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
& ORDER

v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

APPEARANCES:
John C. Connell, Esq.
Nicholas Franchetti, Esq.
Archer & Greiner, P.C.
One Centennial Square
P.O. Box 3000
Haddonfield, NJ 08033-0968
Counsel for Defendant Lauren Reeves
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General of New Jersey
Michael R. Sarno, Deputy Attorney General
Office of the New Jersey Attorney General
R.J. Hughes Justice Complex
PO Box 116
Trenton, NJ 08625
Counsel for Defendants Jerry Stretch, James McCabe, Kevin
Manning, Thomas Togno, Matthew Arrowood, Michael Ryan, Gerald
Gribble, Stephen Weldon, Brenda Hepner and Edward Soltys, i/p/a
Saltese
Richard A. Stoloff, Esq.
Law Offices of Richard A. Stoloff
605 New Road
Linwood, NJ 08221
Counsel for Plaintiff Marianito Ruiz

HILLMAN, District Judge
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2019, Defendants filed motions for
summary judgment asking the Court to dismiss Plaintiff Marianito
Ruiz’s amended complaint, see ECF Nos. 130 & 131; and
WHEREAS, Defendants submitted certain exhibits in hard copy
only pursuant to a discovery confidentiality order issued by
Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider; and
WHEREAS, Defendants move to seal Exhibits A-F and H-L 1 which
were attached to the Certification of Michael R. Sarno, DAG, but
not filed on the public docket in any form for the Court’s
consideration, see ECF Nos. 155 and 156; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff seeks to seal the exhibits to his
opposition to Defendants’ motions, see ECF No. 152; and
WHEREAS, “[i]t is well-settled that there exists, in both
criminal and civil cases, a common law public right of access to
judicial proceedings and records.

The public's right of access

extends beyond simply the ability to attend open court
proceedings.

Rather, it envisions a pervasive common law right

to inspect and copy public records and documents, including
judicial records and documents.”

In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d

183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001) (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted); and

1

Defendants do not seek to seal Exhibit G.
2

WHEREAS, a party seeking to seal portions of the judicial
record from public view bears party “bears the heavy burden of
showing that the material is the kind of information that courts
will protect and that disclosure will work a clearly defined and
serious injury to the party seeking closure.”

Millhouse v.

Ebbert, 674 F. App’x 127, 128 (3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted); and
WHEREAS, a motion to seal or otherwise restrict public
access is governed by Local Civil Rule 5.3 and states that that
motion shall be “a single, consolidated motion on behalf of all
parties.”

The parties have not complied with the Local Rule as

they have filed two separate motions to seal and it does not
appear they have conferred “in an effort to narrow or eliminate
the materials or information that may be the subject of a motion
to seal.”

Local Civ. R. 5.3(c)(2)(i).

Moreover, the Rule

contemplates that redacted materials be filed on the public
docket and the unredacted materials be filed under temporary
seal while the motion is pending before the Court, Local Civ. R.
5.3(c)(4).

Defendants have not filed their unredacted materials

on the docket under temporary seal; and
WHEREAS, the parties may file a conforming motion nunc pro
tunc within 5 days of this Order
THEREFORE, IT IS on this

5th

day of March, 2020

ORDERED that the parties shall file a motion to seal in
3

compliance with Local Civ. R. 5.3 within 5 days of this Order.

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

At Camden, New Jersey

4