DeGraffenreid et al v. Garland et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 15 Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal and for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett on 3/6/25. (dle)

Case 2:23-cv-00054-JNP-JCB

Document 17
of 5

Filed 03/06/25

PageID.104

Page 1

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
BRANDON DEGRAFFENREID and
NATYRA BAKALLI,
Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
Case No. 2:23-cv-00054-JNP-JCB

v.
MERRICK GARLAND, U.S. Attorney
General; et al.,

District Judge Jill N. Parrish

Defendants.

Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett

District Judge Jill N. Parrish referred this case to Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett under
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 1 Before the court is Plaintiffs Brandon Degraffenreid and Natyra
Bakalli’s (“Ms. Bakalli”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motion to seal and for protective order. 2
Based upon the analysis set forth below, the court denies Plaintiffs’ motion.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs’ complaint in this case sought to compel Defendants to adjudicate an
immigration petition and an immigration application for Ms. Bakalli. 3 Plaintiffs later voluntarily
dismissed this case because Defendants approved the petition and the application. 4

1

ECF No. 16.

2

ECF No. 15.

3

ECF No. 1.

4

ECF No. 14.

Case 2:23-cv-00054-JNP-JCB

Document 17
of 5

Filed 03/06/25

PageID.105

Page 2

Because this is an immigration case, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(c)(2) provides limitations on
nonparty remote electronic access to case documents. Although Rule 5.2(c)(2) permits a
nonparty to “have electronic access to the full record at the courthouse,” a nonparty “may have
remote electronic access only to: (A) the docket maintained by the court; and (B) an opinion,
order, judgment, or other disposition of the court, but not any other part of the case file or the
administrative record.” 5 In the motion before the court, Plaintiffs contend that, despite Rule
5.2(c)(2)’s limitations, “[n]on[]parties purportedly have full access and availability to all court
documents associated with this case through a third-party website, pacermonitor.com, and other
third-party websites.” 6 Plaintiffs assert that Ms. Bakalli “has lost employment opportunities as a
result” of that nonparty remote electronic access because she “is now employed in a field that
heavily scrutinizes the appearance of prior legal action, even action that has nothing to do with
her career.” 7 Consequently, Plaintiffs request that the court to seal this case.
Additionally, Plaintiffs request that the court issue a protective order under Rule 5.2(e),
which provides that “[f]or good cause, the court may by order in a case: (1) require redaction of
additional information; or (2) limit or prohibit a nonparty’s remote electronic access to a
document filed with the court.” 8 Plaintiffs ask the court to enter an order: (1) requiring redaction
of their names from all documents in this case; and (2) prohibiting or limiting nonparties’ remote
electronic access to all documents in this case.

5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(c)(2)(A)-(B).

6

ECF No. 15 at 2 (emphasis in original).

7

Id.

8

Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(e)(1)-(2).
2

Case 2:23-cv-00054-JNP-JCB

Document 17
of 5

Filed 03/06/25

PageID.106

Page 3

Based upon the following analysis, the court denies Plaintiffs’ request to seal this case
and request for a protective order. Each request is addressed in order below.
ANALYSIS
I.

The Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Request to Seal This Case.
The court denies Plaintiffs’ request to seal this case because they have not carried the

heavy burden that must be satisfied to grant their request. Although “[c]ourts have long
recognized a common-law right of access to judicial records,” that right “is not absolute.” 9
“[T]he presumption in favor of access to judicial records may be overcome where
‘countervailing interests heavily outweigh the public interests in access.’” 10 “‘The party seeking
to overcome the presumption’ of public access to the documents ‘bears the burden of showing
some significant interest that outweighs the presumption.’” 11 More specifically, to succeed on a
motion to seal a case, the party moving to seal “‘must articulate a real and substantial interest
that justifies depriving the public of access to the records that inform [the court’s]
decision-making process.’” 12 In resolving a motion to seal a case, the court must “‘weigh the
interests of the public, which are presumptively paramount, against those advanced by the

9

Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007).

10

Colony Ins. Co. v. Burke, 698 F.3d 1222, 1241 (10th Cir. 2012) (quoting Mann, 477 F.3d at
1149).
11

Helm v. Kansas, 656 F.3d 1277, 1292 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting Mann, 477 F.3d at 1149).

12

Colony Ins. Co., 698 F.3d at 1242 (quoting Helm, 656 F.3d at 1292).
3

Case 2:23-cv-00054-JNP-JCB

Document 17
of 5

Filed 03/06/25

PageID.107

Page 4

parties.’” 13 The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has stated that a party
seeking to seal a case carries a “‘heavy burden.’” 14
Plaintiffs’ only support for their request to seal this case is the conclusory assertion that
Ms. Bakalli has “lost employment opportunities as a result” of nonparties’ remote electronic
access to documents in this case. 15 The court questions this conclusory assertion both because it
lacks any evidentiary support and because the court was unable to access any documents in this
case on pacermonitor.com, 16 which is the website Plaintiffs contend makes all such documents
“purportedly” available, in addition to “other,” unidentified “third-party websites.” 17 These
unsubstantiated assertions of access—to say nothing of whether they actually caused Ms.
Bakalli’s loss of employment opportunities—cannot justify the request Plaintiffs make here.
Accordingly, the court denies Plaintiffs’ request to seal this case.
II.

The Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Request for a Protective Order.
The court also denies Plaintiffs’ request under Rule 5.2(e): (1) requiring redaction of their

names from all documents in this case; and (2) prohibiting or limiting nonparties’ remote
electronic access to all documents in this case. First, the court denies Plaintiffs’ request to redact
their names from all documents in this case because they have not shown good cause under Rule
5.2(e)(1). In support of their request, Plaintiffs rely upon the same conclusory assertion
13

Helm, 656 F.3d at 1292 (quoting Crystal Grower’s Corp. v. Dobbins, 616 F.2d 458, 461 (10th
Cir. 1980)).
14

Colony Ins. Co., 698 F.3d at 1242 (quoting Helm, 656 F.3d at 1293).

15

ECF No. 15 at 2.

16

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/47531993/DeGraffenreid_et_al_v_Garland_et_al
(providing that “[t]his case is not available”) (last visited Mar. 6, 2025).
17

ECF No. 15 at 2.
4

Case 2:23-cv-00054-JNP-JCB

Document 17
of 5

Filed 03/06/25

PageID.108

Page 5

concerning Ms. Bakalli’s lost employment opportunities. Consistent with the conclusion above,
the court is not persuaded. 18 Therefore, the court denies Plaintiffs’ request.
Second, the court denies Plaintiffs’ request for an order prohibiting or limiting nonparties’
remote electronic access to all documents in this case because Plaintiffs have not demonstrated
good cause under Rule 5.2(e)(2). Again, Plaintiffs have not shown that this access is actually
occurring, much less that it is significant enough to warrant the relief they request. 19
Accordingly, the court denies Plaintiffs’ request.
ORDER
For the reasons stated above, the court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ motion to seal
and for protective order 20 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 6th day of March 2025.
BY THE COURT:

JARED C. BENNETT
United States Magistrate Judge
18

Buster v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs for Lincoln Cnty., No. 21-CV-1208 CG/SMV, 2022 WL
1689387, at *1 (D.N.M. May 26, 2022) (providing that “[t]he purpose of Rule 5.2 is to ‘to
protect privacy and security concerns’ of individuals,” and “[g]ood cause for redaction under
Rule 5.2(e)(1) exists when a party’s privacy and security concerns outweigh the public interest in
access to judicial records” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 advisory committee’s note) (other
quotations and citation omitted)).
19

New England Life Ins. Co. v. Wilson, No. 2:11-CV-45, 2011 WL 13214116, at *3 (D. Vt. Sept.
28, 2011) (providing that the “good cause standard” under Rule 5.2(e)(2) “is satisfied by a
showing that disclosure will cause a clearly defined, serious injury, substantiated by specific
examples or articulated reasoning”).
20

ECF No. 15.
5