Palencar v. Raijski et al

Filing 67

MEMORANDUM ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Clerk of Court shallplace under seal Docket Numbers 37, 54, and 63 in the record of this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT this Order is entered without prejudice to the rightof any third party to seek to have the sealing order lifted upon a showing of good cause. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on June 22, 2018. (kjn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HILARY PALENCAR,
Plaintiff
v.
STANLEY RAIJSKI, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. 3:15-CV-1189
(Judge Mannion)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
The plaintiff, Hilary Palencar, initiated this action by filing a complaint on
June 17, 2015, naming numerous defendants and asserting claims under the Fair
Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq. Although Ms. Palencar filed a number of
amended complaints in this case, she ultimately conceded to the defendants’
motion to dismiss the litigation in January 2017, without the merits of the
plaintiff’s claims never being fully considered or tried.

(Doc. 62.)

The

undersigned entered a report and recommendation recommending that the case be
dismissed (Doc. 63), and on February 15, 2017, the district court dismissed the
case and directed the Clerk of Court to have it marked closed. (Doc. 66.)
Although this action has now been closed for well over a year, the plaintiff
recently wrote to the Court by email expressing concern that some of the
information contained in documents issued by this Court on the docket was of a

sensitive personal nature, and she articulated concerned with how easily these
public court filings could be accessed through an internet search. It appears that
Ms. Palencar first requested that online services such as PACER strike all record of
this litigation, but she was unable to persuade these services to remove public
records from the internet. Frustrated in this effort, Ms. Palencar wrote to the Court
to request that the entirety of this litigation be sealed so that the public would be
unable to review any of the records of the case.
We are unable to grant the full scope of relief that the plaintiff seeks, as it
would run counter to well-settled legal guidelines mandating a presumption that
federal legal proceedings are a matter of public record, and therefore should be
open and subject to access by the public. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has
“recognized a right of access to judicial proceedings and judicial records, and this
right of access is ‘beyond dispute.’” Littlejohn v. Bic Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 677-78
(3d Cir. 1988) (quoting Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1066 (3d
Cir. 1984)). Indeed, the Third Circuit has noted that the act of filing a document in
federal court carries with it the “presumptive right of public access.” Leucadia,
Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Technologies, Inc., 998 F.2d 157, 161-62 (3d Cir. 1993).
Nevertheless, courts do retain a measure of discretion in entering orders to
seal litigation records, approve confidentiality agreements, and enter protective
orders where the public disclosure of certain material may “work a clearly defined
2

and serious injury to the party seeking closure.” Publicker Indus. v. Cohen, 733
F.2d 1059, 1071 (3d Cir. 1984).

The party requesting a sealing order must

demonstrate this harm with specificity, and “’[b]road allegations of harm
unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning,’ do not support a
good cause showing.” Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786 (3d Cir.
1994) (quoting Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir.
1986)). The burden of justifying the entry of a confidentiality order is on the party
requesting the order. Id. at 786-87.
In determining whether good cause exists to justify sealing any judicial
records, courts are to engage in a balancing process involving consideration of
multiple factors. One of the primary factors, naturally, is a party’s interest in
privacy, and in appropriate cases it is proper “for courts to order confidentiality to
prevent the infliction of unnecessary or serious pain on parties who the court
reasonably finds are entitled to such protection.” Pansy, 23 F.3d at 787. This
factor is diminished in importance where the party seeking the protective order is a
public official, or where the information regards important matters of public health
and safety. Id. at 788. Conversely, if a case involves private parties “and concerns
matters of little legitimate public interest,” that factor weighs in favor of a grant of
confidentiality. Id.

3

Turning to this case, guided by the foregoing considerations, we find that it
is appropriate to enter an order sealing the undersigned’s reports and
recommendations that were entered during this course of this litigation. As the
plaintiff has ably argued, some of the matters addressed in those reports concern
the plaintiff’s health, and she has asserted that her interest in the privacy of those
matters justify entry of a sealing order. In this case, Ms. Palencar seeks some
reasonable measure of protection over the dissemination of judicial records that
comment upon private medical matters, and she has particularly alleged that third
parties have already sought to access this information, causing her considerable
stress and embarrassment. We believe that in a case involving claims that were
dismissed by the plaintiff, where those claims were essentially private in nature,
and of little interest to the public, the plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to seal
this Court’s reports and recommendation to guard against further risk of
embarrassment or unnecessary invasion of the her privacy in health-related
matters. We further find, following review of the docket in this case, that the only
judicial records that include the information that the plaintiff seeks to keep private
are the reports and recommendation that the undersigned issued when considering
the motions to dismiss that had been filed prior to the plaintiff conceding to the
dismissal of her claims. We will therefore direct that those records be sealed.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Clerk of Court shall
place under seal Docket Numbers 37, 54, and 63 in the record of this case. IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED THAT this Order is entered without prejudice to the right
of any third party to seek to have the sealing order lifted upon a showing of good
cause.1
So ordered this 22d day of June, 2018.

/s/ Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge

Of course, in the unlikely event that we received an unsealing request relating to
these requests we would provide Ms. Palencar with notice and an opportunity to be
heard before acting upon any such request.
5

1