Ghadersohi v. Health Research, Inc. Roswell Park Cancer Institute
Filing
132
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 131 Motion to Reopen and Seal this case; FURTHER, Plaintiff is prohibited from filing any further motions in this closed case and FURTHER, the Clerk of Court shall not accept any further motions for filing in this closed case. Signed by William M. Skretny, Chief Judge U.S.D.C. on 4/15/2014. (CLERK TO FOLLOW UP). (CMD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ALI GHADERSOHI,
Plaintiff,
DECISION AND ORDER
v.
08-CV-355S(Sc)
HEALTH RESEARCH, INC. and
ROSWELL PARK CANCER INSTITUTE,
Defendants.
1.
Plaintiff commenced this employment discrimination action on May 13, 2008.
The case was closed on February 11, 2009, after the parties filed a stipulation of
discontinuance. Throughout 2009, Plaintiff proceeded to file numerous motions in the
closed case―Docket Nos. 49 (motion to seal), 52 (motion to enforce settlement
agreement) 53 (motion to expedite), 69 (motion to seal), 70 (motion for reconsideration,
71 (motion to seal), 72 (motion for scheduling conference), 73 (motion to seal), 74 (motion
to file under seal), 75 (motion to file under seal), 80 (motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis), 86 (motion to seal), 87 (motion to seal), 88 (motion to appoint counsel), 91
(motion alleging further breach of confidentiality agreement), 102 (motion for extension of
time), and 104 (motion to seal). In January 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for withdrawal of
attorney (Docket No. 120). Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion, filed on March
28, 2014, requesting that the case be reopened for the purpose of sealing this action in its
entirety. (Docket No. 131).
2.
There is a presumption that Court documents are accessible to the public and "that
1
a substantial showing is necessary to restrict access." Local Rules of Civil Procedure
5.3(a). Cases recognize the common-law right of access to judicial documents as a
measure of accountability for federal courts. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435
F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006); DiRussa v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 121 F.3d 818, 826
(2d Cir. 1997). “Without monitoring, . . . the public could have no confidence in the
conscientiousness, reasonableness, or honesty of judicial proceedings.” United States v.
Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995). Where the documents or statements at issue
are of a type routinely filed by the court and generally accessible, the presumption of
accessibility is stronger than where the documents or statements are unusual or of a type
generally filed under seal. Id. at 1050. The weight of the presumption of accessibility must
be balanced with any countervailing factors, such as the danger that disclosure will impair
law enforcement, judicial efficiency, or the privacy interests of third-parties, promote
scandal, or be used to gratify private spite. Id. at 1050-51.
There also exists a qualified First Amendment right to access certain judicial
documents. Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 91 (2d Cir. 2004). Where
such a right exists, documents may be sealed only if the court makes specific, on the
record findings demonstrating that “closure is essential to preserve higher values and is
narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” In re New York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110, 116 (2d
Cir. 1987). Under both the common law and the First Amendment, the burden of
demonstrating that a document or case should be sealed rests with the party seeking that
relief. Amodeo, 71 F.3d at 1047.
3.
Each of Plaintiff’s 2009 motions to seal related to specific pleadings or documents
and were based on the confidential nature of information contained therein. The motions
2
were, in large part, granted. Plaintiff now requests that this entire case be sealed, and
also removed from PACER1, based on his belief that he has been unable to obtain
employment because “companies such as: FindACase and LAW.JUSTIA.COM”
published on the internet information about a different action he filed in this Court in 2010.
(Docket No. 131 ¶ 1 Exh. A.)
4.
The documents that remain accessible in this case are the type that give rise to a
strong presumption against sealing. The only concern Plaintiff has raised relates to a
different action entirely, and so does not warrant sealing of this case. Accordingly,
Plaintiff=s motion to seal is denied and his request to reopen this case for that purpose is
denied as moot.
5.
IT HEREBY IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen and Seal this Case
(Docket No. 131) is DENIED;
FURTHER that Plaintiff is prohibited from filing any further motions in this closed
case; and
FURTHER that the Clerk of Court shall not accept any further motions for filing in
this closed case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
April 14, 2014
Buffalo, New York
s/William M. Skretny
WILLIAM M. SKRETNY
Chief Judge
United States District Cour
1 The combination of PACER and electronic case filing system makes plaintiff's case accessible to those
with computer access and an account with the federal judiciary to access filings. Documents that are part of
the publically-accessible record may be republished or discussed elsewhere.
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?