Opinion
23-CV-5889 (LTS)
02-27-2024
DEIRDRE NEWSOM, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES INC., Defendant.
ORDER
Laura Taylor Swain Chief United States District Judge
Plaintiff filed this action pro se. On September 6, 2023, the Court dismissed the complaint because Plaintiff did not pay the fees to bring a civil action in this court or request that the fees be waived. On February 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a letter-motion asking that the action be placed under seal. The Court denies the motion.
Plaintiff seeks relief in a closed case. Generally, a party seeking relief in a closed case must move for reconsideration of the challenged order, under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court declines to treat Plaintiff's letter-motion as including a Rule 60(b) motion because the Court denies the relief requested in the letter-motion.
DISCUSSION
Both the common law and the First Amendment protect the public's right of access to court documents. See Nixon v. Warner Comms., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597-99 (1978); Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 91-92 (2d Cir. 2004). This right of access is not absolute, and “the decision as to access [to judicial records] is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599 (footnote omitted).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has set forth a three part analysis to determine whether, under the common law, a document relating to a lawsuit should be made available to the public. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006).
First, the Court must determine whether the document at issue is indeed a “judicial document,” to which the public has a presumptive right of access. Id. at 119. Complaints are considered judicial documents for the purpose of this analysis. Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139-40 (2d Cir. 2016) (all pleadings, including a complaint, “are judicial records subject to a presumption of public access”). The same is true with respect to a court's own decisions and orders. See Hardy v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the United States, 697 Fed.Appx. 723, 725-26 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order); Ferrand v. Credit Lyonnais, 106 F.Supp.3d 452, 455 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).
Second, the Court must determine the weight of the presumption of access. “It is plain that a complaint is a judicial document to which the presumption of access attaches . . . because the complaint ‘is highly relevant to the exercise of Article III judicial power' and the complaint ‘invokes the powers of the court, states the causes of action, and prays for relief.'” Haider v. Geller & Co. LLC, 457 F.Supp.3d 424, 427 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (quoting Bernstein, 814 F.3d at 142). Moreover, “[u]nder the First Amendment analysis, complaints have historically been publicly accessible by default and such access allows the public to ‘understand the activity of the federal courts, enhances the court system's accountability and legitimacy, and informs the public of matters of public concern.'” Id. (quoting Bernstein, 814 F.3d at 141). “Notwithstanding this presumption of access, portions of the complaint may be kept under seal if ‘countervailing factors in the common law framework or higher values in the First Amendment framework,'” including the attorney-client privilege. Id. (quoting Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 124 (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Third, “the court must balance competing considerations against” the presumption of access. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to . . . the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Generally, the privacy interests considered are those of innocent third parties. See United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 105051 (2d Cir. 1995).
Finally, the fact that a document has been publicly available weighs against restricting public access to it. See, e.g., United States v. Basciano, Nos. 03-CR-0929, 05-CR-0060, 2010 WL 1685810, at *3-4 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2010) (privacy interest in sealing documents was weakened by the fact that the public was already aware of the relevant information).
In Plaintiff's letter-motion, she requests that this action “be filed under seal to exercise my right to privacy and protect my personal information.” (ECF 6, at 1.). This request appears to seek the sealing of all documents filed in this case, that is: (1) the complaint (ECF 1); (2) the Court's order directing Plaintiff to pay the fees or request that the fees be waived (ECF 2); (3) a letter from Plaintiff requesting “service of process” (ECF 3); (4) the Court's order of dismissal and civil judgment (ECF 4-5): and (5) Plaintiff's letter-motion requesting that this case be placed under seal.
Plaintiff's request is denied. First, the Court finds that these documents are judicial documents and therefore entitled to a strong presumption of public access. Second, the contents of Plaintiff's submissions and the Court's orders are not sufficiently extraordinary and, consequently, do not outweigh the strong presumption in favor of public access to them. Except for the complaint, the documents are routine filings that have no bearing on Plaintiff's privacy. As for the complaint, the presumption of access may only be overcome by countervailing factors not relevant here; rather, Plaintiff merely seeks to place under seal her complaint for privacy reasons. Third, Plaintiff's personal interest in privacy does not argue in favor of sealing the complaint.
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a pleading without requesting any restriction to its access by the public. Since the opening of this action on July 10, 2023, the complaint has been publicly available. Plaintiff's broad request that it be placed under seal based on her “right to privacy” (ECF 6, at 1) does not overcome the presumption of access. The Court therefore denies Petitioner's request to place this action under seal.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's letter-motion seeking to seal this case (ECF 6) is denied.
This action is closed. The Clerk of Court will only accept for filing documents that are directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. If Plaintiff files other documents that are frivolous or meritless, the Court will direct Plaintiff to show cause why the Plaintiff should not be barred from filing further documents in this action.
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.