Miller v. Fluent Home LLC et al
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order denying #1 Motion to Seal Case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett on 9/23/20. (jwt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
GREGORY R. MILLER,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00641
v.
FLUENT HOME, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
District Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett
Contemporaneously with the filing of the Complaint, Defendants filed a document
entitled “Defendants’ Ex Parte Emergency Motion to Seal” in which they ask this court to seal
this case. 1 Defendants provide numerous exhibits showing that Plaintiff Gregory R. Miller (“Mr.
Miller”) has been sanctioned in state court several times and, eventually, was labeled a vexatious
litigant for asserting some of the claims that Mr. Miller has apparently brought to this court. 2
Because Defendants assert that at least some of the claims that Mr. Miller asserts in this action
are the same baseless claims that got him disciplined in state court, Defendants ask this court to
either seal the complaint or this entire case to protect Defendants from further reputational
1
ECF No. 1.
2
Id. at 2-9.
damage that may result if Mr. Miller’ purportedly improper accusations are allowed to remain
public. 3 As shown below, this court denies Defendants’ motion to seal.
Although courts have discretion, 4 sealing litigation documents, to say nothing of entire
cases, is disfavored in the United States. In fact, DUCivR 5-2(a) provides, “Court records are
presumptively open to the public. Unless restricted by statute or court order, the sealing of civil
cases is highly discouraged. In extraordinary circumstances, a judge may order a case to be
sealed by granting a party’s motion or sua sponte.” The reason that sealing documents and entire
cases is “disfavored” is because “[i]n the United States, there is both a constitutional (First
Amendment) and a common law right of public access to judicial documents-defined as
documents that are ‘relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial
process.”’ 5 Given this constitutional and common law foundation for open courts, court records
are presumed open to the public. Indeed, sealing entire cases is even more disfavored because
doing so “conceal[s] the very existence of lawsuits from the public” 6 and, therefore, is a measure
of last resort. 7
3
Id. at 10-12.
4
Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007) (stating that sealing court records is
“left to the sound discretion of the district court”).
5
Veleron Holding, B.V. v. Stanley, No. 12 CIV. 5966 CM, 2014 WL 1569610, at *6 (S.D.N.Y.
Apr. 16, 2014) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir.1995); and then
citing Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir.1995)); see also United States v. Bacon, 950 F.3d
1286, 1292 (10th Cir. 2020) (‘“Courts have long recognized a common-law right of access to
judicial records.”’ (citations omitted)).
6
Standard Chartered Bank Int’l (Am.) Ltd. v. Calvo, 757 F.Supp.2d 258, 260 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
7
In re Platinum & Palladium Commodities Litig., 828 F.Supp.2d 602, 604 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
2
To overcome the heavy presumption in favor of keeping records and cases open to the
public, a party must show that the interests of sealing a case “heavily outweigh the public
interests in access,” which requires the court to “weigh the interests of the public, which are
presumptively paramount, against those advanced by the parties.” 8 “[T]he party seeking to keep
records sealed bears the burden of justifying that secrecy . . . .” 9
The court finds that Defendants have failed to carry their burden to seal the complaint
and, in the alternative, the entire case. In nearly all civil and criminal litigation filed in the United
States Courts, one party asserts that the allegations leveled against it by another party are
patently false, and the result of the litigation may quickly prove that. However, if the purported
falsity of the complaint’s allegations were sufficient to seal an entire case, then the law would
recognize a presumption to seal instead of a presumption of openness. Tellingly, Defendants
cannot cite any case—and the court cannot find any—that would allow either the complaint or
this entire case to be sealed because an infamously litigious plaintiff has filed claims in a court
after some of those claims had been previously rejected in another court. To deal with such
circumstances, the law provides remedies such as issue preclusion, 10 claim preclusion, 11 the
8
Bacon, 950 F.3d at 1293 (quotations and citation omitted).
9
Id. (quotations and citation omitted).
10
Park Lake Res. Ltd. Liab. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 378 F.3d 1132, 1136 (10th Cir. 2004) (“In
contrast to claim preclusion, issue preclusion bars a party from relitigating an issue once it has
suffered an adverse determination on the issue, even if the issue arises when the party is pursuing
or defending against a different claim.”).
11
Id. (“Claim preclusion bars a party from relitigating a claim or cause of action on which final
judgment has been rendered.”).
3
Rooker-Feldman doctrine, 12 and vexatious litigant motions to restrict a plaintiff from filing new
cases in federal court. 13 However, sealing the complaint or the entire case is not among the
options that the law provides.
ORDER
Therefore, Defendants’ motion 14 is DENIED.
DATED September 23, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
JARED C. BENNETT
United States Magistrate Judge
12
Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 463 (2006) (“[U]nder what has come to be known as the
Rooker–Feldman doctrine, lower federal courts are precluded from exercising appellate
jurisdiction over final state-court judgments.”).
13
Berg v. Gedo, No. 20-4046, 2020 WL 5230553, *1 (Sept. 2, 2020 10th Cir.) (affirming district
court’s denial to allow plaintiff to file frivolous action after plaintiff placed on district court’s
restricted filer list).
14
ECF No. 1.
4
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?