Preston et al v. Hilton Central School District et al

Filing 3

ORDER denying plaintiffs' 2 Motion to Seal Case, but plaintiffs are granted leave to proceed anonymously using pseudonyms or initials. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 9/12/11. (EMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________________
TRISHA PRESTON and MICHAEL PRESTON,
Individually and As Parents and Natural Guardians
of AP, an Infant,
Plaintiffs,
ORDER
11-CV-6420L
v.
HILTON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, BRIAN
BARTALO, DANA BOSHNACK, BRAD HELMER,
TAIT LOE, ANN FREY, ANN MARIE MADCONALD
and EILEEN COWEY,
Defendants.
________________________________________________
The plaintiffs’ motion to seal all pleadings and records in this action (Dkt. #2) is denied.
The well-established presumption of accessibility to court documents is reflected in Local
Rule 5.3(a) which states that “there is a presumption that Court documents are accessible to the
public and that a substantial showing is necessary to restrict access.” See also Video Software
Dealers Ass’n v. Orion Pictures, 21 F.3d 24, 26 (2d Cir. 1994) (“[C]ourts have recognized a strong
presumption of public access to court records. This preference for public access is rooted in the
public’s first amendment right to know about the administration of justice”) (citing Nixon v. Warner
Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978)).
While this presumption of access can be overcome by a number of countervailing interests,
such as preserving a defendant’s right to a fair trial or a third party’s privacy interests, see, e.g.,
Stephanski v. Goord, No. 02-CV-562F, 2005 WL 711628, at *1-*2 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2005), the
Second Circuit has emphasized that a district court “must carefully and skeptically review sealing
requests to insure that there really is an extraordinary circumstance or compelling need” to seal court
records. Orion Pictures, 21 F.3d at 27.

Although I do recognize that the action involves a minor as the alleged victim, nevertheless,
since the victim has been removed from the defendant school district, I believe that there are
countervailing reasons why total sealing of the entire file is not warranted. I do not believe plaintiffs
have presented sufficient facts to overcome the presumption of openness and public access to
judicial proceedings, especially since the defendant is not a private party but is a school district that
allegedly allowed employees to engage in impermissible conduct. The public, then, has some
interest in having access to such a proceeding concerning the claims alleged and the Court’s handling
of such a matter.
Plaintiffs may, however, elect to proceed anonymously using pseudonyms or initials to
protect the privacy of themselves and the infant plaintiff.

CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs’ motion to seal the entire file and records (Dkt. #2) is denied, but plaintiffs are
granted leave to proceed anonymously using pseudonyms or initials.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________________________________
DAVID G. LARIMER
United States District Judge
Dated: Rochester, New York
September 12, 2011.

-2-