Casserd v. Colvin

Filing 24

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 23 Motion to Seal signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (TH) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

1

THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

SUSAN CASSERD,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, in her capacity )
as Acting Commissioner of the Social
)
Security Administration 1,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)

16

Case No. C14-00451-RAJ
ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal. Dkt. # 23.

17

Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s Motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 5(g), the party

18

who designates a document confidential must provide a “specific statement of the

19

applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, including

20

an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interest that warrant the relief

21

sought; (ii) the injury that will result if the relief sought is not granted; and (iii) why a

22

less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not sufficient.” W.D. Wash. Local

23

Rules LCR 5(g). The party seeking to seal a judicial record must show that “compelling

24

reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general history of access

25
26
27

1

Nancy A. Berryhill is now the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Nancy A. Berryhill is substituted for
Carolyn W. Colvin as defendant in this suit.

1

and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana v. City of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

2

1172, 1178-78 (9th Cir. 2006).

3

Plaintiff, filing her motion pro se, requests that the Court seal the judgment

4

entered in this case on December 17, 2014 (Dkt. # 17). Plaintiff also notes that the

5

document is widely available on the internet and can be accessed through the Google

6

search engine. Dkt. # 23. While Plaintiff provides compelling reasons for wanting to

7

keep the information at issue sealed, Plaintiff does not provide a specific statement of

8

the applicable legal standard or reasons why a less restrictive alternative to the relief

9

sought is not sufficient. Plaintiff also fails to articulate an injury that would result if the

10

Court does not grant her Motion. Plaintiff filed this Motion two years after the

11

judgment was issued, it was disseminated during that time period, and has been

12

available to the public for quite some time. Having considered the relevant documents

13

and legal standard, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. Dkt. # 23.

14

SO ORDERED this 6th day of December, 2018.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

A
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge