Nelson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: In February 2014, plaintiff Tamara Nelsop filed a complaint, seeking review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") finding that her disability had ended in April 2010. (Mem. & Ord er at 5, ECF No. 18). On December 31, 2014, Judge John Gleeson issued a Memorandum and Order (the "Order") remanding Nelson's case to the Commissioner for the calculation and award of benefits. (Id. at 21). On November 14, 2016 appeari ng pro se, plaintiff filed a letter motion, which requested that the Court seal her casefile because some "law research blogs" had posted the Order online and the publication of this information was frightening her. (Letter, ECF No. 17). Wi thout elaboration, Nelson also asserted that the publication of this material had caused her to fear for her safety. (Id.). On December 6, 2016, the Court denied Nelson's motion to seal this ordinary public court record. (Order Denying Mot. to S eal, ECF No. 21). For the reasons discussed above, Nelson's motion for reconsideration and for an order sealing her docket is denied. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Order would not be take n in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States369 U.S. 438, 82 S. Ct. 917, 920-21, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff and to maintain this case on the closed docket. (See attachment for full Memorandum & Order). Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 4/6/2017. (Basnight, Jasmine)

'

I

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------------- x

TAMARA NELSON,

Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM & 0
-against14 Civ. 1109 (ENV)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

i

i

-----------------------------------------------------------~----

x

VITALIANO, D.J.
In February 2014, plaintiff Tamara Nelsop filed a complaint, seeking review of the fi
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") finding that her disability
1

I

had ended in April 2010. (Mem. & Order at 5, ECF No. 18). On December 31, 2014, Judge
I

John Gleeson issued a Memorandum and Order (the "Order") remanding Nelson's case to th
Commissioner for the calculation and award of Henefits. (Id. at 21). On November 14, 2016
appearing pro se, plaintiff filed a letter motion, which requested that the Court seal her casefi e
because some "law research biogs" had posted the Order online and the publication of this
I
information was frightening her. (Letter, ECF No. 17). Without elaboration, Nelson also
asserted that the publication of this material had caused her to fear for her safety. (Id.). On
December 6, 2016, the Court denied Nelson's motion to seal this ordinary public court recor .
(Order Denying Mot. to Seal, ECF No. 21).
I

Nelson thereafter filed a letter, which th~ Court interpreted as a motion for
reconsideration. (Reconsideration Letter, ECF No. 22). In her letter, Nelson distraughtly
I

1

ER

explained that the availability of the Order online had only worsened her anxiety and depressi n
and had caused her to suffer panic attacks. (Id.). She also offered that, even if the Order coul
not be sealed, she would feel better if it did not a~pear on law biogs or show up in online sear ·
results. (Id.). The Court denied reconsideration ~ecause Nelson had made "no showing ofthi
Court's misapprehension of facts or law at the time of its ruling that would require this Court
revisit its prior decision." (12/20/16 Docket Order (citing Schrader v. CSX Transportation, 1 .,
70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995))).
Undaunted by the reaffirmation of the prior ruling, on March 6, 2017, Nelson filed
I

i

another letter, styled on the docket as a motion to seal. (Second Mot. to Seal, ECF No. 23).
this letter, Nelson reiterated her prior lamentations that her anxiety and depression had worse ed
because of the Order's presence online. (Id.). The letter went on to explain that she has lost
friends as a consequence. (Id.). All of this prompted her request that the Order be sealed so t at
I

it will be blocked from search engines. (Id.).
As an initial matter, despite being styled on the docket as a motion to seal, Nelson's
March 6, 2017, letter is more appropriately chara;cterized as yet another motion for
reconsideration. As such, her motion is untimelY; because it was filed more than 14 days
I

following the entry of the order denying her motion to seal. See E.D.N.Y. Local Civil Rule
1.

While her prose status might excuse the tardiness, far more importantly, as with her first mo ion
for reconsideration, the present motion does not demonstrate any misapprehension by the Co rt
of facts or law at the time of its ruling that wou14 require a revisit of the original decision. S
Schrader, 70 F.3d at 257. The facts presented in Nelson's March 6, 2017, letter, simply, do
I,

alter the factual or legal landscape.

r2
I

The denial of her motion in no way sugge~ts that the Court does not take Nelson at her
word that the availability of the Order online has caused her great distress. The public
availability of such orders is, unfortunately for her, the consequence of a public dispute
resolution system financed with taxpayer funds. Electronic access, moreover, is not unique to
Nelson's case; nor, surely, is Nelson alone in unh~ppiness. In Social Security cases, orders
regularly include sensitive personal health information regarding a claimant's disability. But,

e

do not have Star Chamber justice in the United States. Access by the media, the legal professi n
and the public at large to courts deciding cases openly on the public record helps solidify that
arrangement, which is why, consequently, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establish a
baseline requirement that orders such as the one

a~grieving

Nelson will be available to the pu ic

I

through remote electronic access. See Fed. R. Ci'f. P. 5.2(c)(2).
I

Moreover, it is the availability of public aGcess to such decisions that helps ensure the
I

I

refreshed validity of caselaw and that parties similarly situated are treated equally under the la .
I

In line with these considerations, a movant bears a weighty burden when requesting that a cas
I

i

be sealed. See In re Orion Pictures Corp., 21 F.3d 24, 27 (2d Cir. 1994). Succinctly, Nelson'
I

predicament is no different than that facing any o~her social security claimant who brings her
case in federal court, and, at bottom, nothing in N~lson' s file qualifies for sealing, especially
since the horse of online access to the Order has long since left the barn. Consequently, neith
Nelson's case (broadly) nor the Order (sBecifically) will be ordered sealed, and her motion
seeking such relief is denied.

3

I

•

r

Conclusion
I

For the reasons discussed above, Nelson's motion for reconsideration and for an order
sealing her docket is denied.
The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Orde
would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in iforma pauperis status is denied for purpose f
an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.~. 438, 444-45, 82 S. Ct. 917, 920-21, 8 L. E .
2d 21 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff and to maintain t ~s
I

case on the closed docket.
So Ordered.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
March 25, 2017

s/ Eric N. Vitaliano
ERICN. VITALIANO
United States District Judge

4