Opinion
Civil Action No. 08-cv-01357-PAB-BNB.
March 1, 2010
ORDER
This matter arises on the plaintiff's Motion to Court Not to Publish Case No. 08-cv-1357-PAB-BNB [Doc. #109, filed 02/24/2010] (the "Motion"). The Motion is DENIED.
The plaintiff requests that the court "not publish" the specifics of this case because publication "could lead to physical harm to plaintiff, possibly death." It is unclear what the plaintiff means by "publish."
The plaintiff commenced this case on June 16, 2008 [Doc. #1]. Judgment entered in favor of the defendant on February 17, 2010 [Doc. #108]. The record does not reflect that the plaintiff has sought to seal any part of this case. Therefore, the entire case is and has been a public record since June 2008.
This court does not control which public records are published by an electronic reporting service such as Westlaw or Lexis. The electronic reporting services have access to all public records and may publish any part of a public record.
I note that Westlaw has published the district judge's order dismissing this case.
To the extent the plaintiff seeks to seal all or part of this case, he must comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2. Rule 7.2 requires that a motion to seal must address, at a minimum, the following:
1. the nature of the material or the proceeding at issue;
2. the private interest that, when weighed against the qualified right or presumption of public access to court files and proceedings, warrants the relief sought;
3. the clearly defined and serious injury that would result if the relief sought is not granted; and
4. why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not practicable or would not adequately protect the interest in question (e.g., redaction, summarization, limited sealing of exhibits or portions of exhibits).
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2C.
The plaintiff does not address these factors. He states only that he brought this case against the United States for failing to protect him against gang members and that the gang members will use this case to label him as a "snitch" or "rat" and harm him. The plaintiff does not explain why he did not seek to seal sensitive papers (if any) prior to filing them, nor does he explain why the perceived danger from gang members is any greater now than it has been over the last 20 months. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.