TAYLOR v. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD et al
Filing
17
OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 1/2/2019. (dmr)(n.m.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
VAN CHARLES TAYLOR,
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD,:
et al.,
:
:
Respondents.
:
:
Civ. Action No. 18-2465 (RMB)
OPINION
BUMB, District Judge
This
matter
comes
before
the
Court
on
Respondents’
uncontested motion to seal documents pursuant to L. Civ. R. 5.3(c).
(Mot. to Seal, ECF No. 13.) For the reasons discussed below, the
Court will grant the motion.
Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) permits a party to file a motion to
seal, or otherwise restrict public access to any materials or
judicial proceedings. Rule 5.3(c)(2) requires that any motion to
seal or otherwise restrict public access shall describe (a) the
nature of the materials or proceedings at issue, (b) the legitimate
private or public interests which warrant 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. See Pansy v.
Borough
of
Stroudsburg,
23
F.3d
772,
787-89
(3d
Cir.
1994)
(describing good cause required to grant a protective order).
The
nature
of
the
material
at
issue
is
Petitioner’s
delinquency adjudication and juvenile pre-dispositional report,
which Respondents filed in support of their answer to Petitioner’s
habeas petition. (Answer, ECF No. 11.) In their answer to the
habeas
petition,
Respondents
contend
they
properly
ran
Petitioner’s sentences consecutively and correctly determined that
Petitioner was not entitled to gap time credits. (Id. at 19-20.)
These juvenile records were filed under temporary seal on the
Court’s docket as Exhibit B. (Answer, Ex. B, ECF No. 12.)
Under New Jersey law, persons have a limited privacy interest
protecting against disclosure of delinquent adjudications. State
ex rel. D.A., 897 A.2d 425, 428 (App. Div. 2006); see State v. Van
Dyke, 825 A.2d 1163, 1168 (App. Div. 2003) (“There is a strong
interest in protecting the confidentiality of juvenile records”
(quoting State v. Allen, 361 A.3d 5 (1976)). The limited privacy
interest
is
codified
in
N.J.S.A.
2A:4A-60,
which
explicitly
safeguards against the public disclosure of such records and allows
juvenile records to be inspected only by certain categories of
officials and entities for limited purposes, reflecting a balance
of protecting the public and aiding in rehabilitation. State ex
rel. D.A., 897 A.2d at 428. Disclosure of these juvenile records
2
would result in the loss of privacy protected by New Jersey law in
aid of rehabilitation of juveniles.
There is no meaningful way to redact the juvenile records.
Therefore, there is no less restrictive alternative to the relief
sought through this motion. The Court will grant Respondents’
motion to seal.
An appropriate Order follows.
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
Date: January 2, 2019
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?