Judge John Woodcock’s opinion today U.S. Department of Energy v. Smith (Sigmund D. Schutz and Alexandra A. Harriman of PretiFlaherty and I represented the media interventionists, and my student Timon Amirani participated in our motion):
An intervening local newspaper has filed a motion to unseal sealed court record entries in a case involving a lawsuit filed by a lottery winner to enforce the terms of a nondisclosure agreement against his ex-partner and the mother of his minor child….
On November 14, 2023, John Doe, under a pseudonym, filed a civil action in this court against another pseudonym, Sara Smith, claiming that she breached the Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) and caused the plaintiff caused damage. The plaintiffs also seek equitable relief, including an injunction against Ms. Smith. In the complaint, Mr. Doe claimed that he was a Maine Lottery winner, that Ms. Smith was the mother of his minor daughter, and that Ms. Smith entered into a confidentiality agreement to “promote the safety of Jane Doe,” [herself]and their daughter” and to avoid “media or public discovery that would cause irreparable harm, Among other thingsJohn Doe’s identity, physical location and assets.
Mr. Jane Doe filed several motions to seal the documents filed in the case because he believed the release of his name would cause him irreparable harm, and the court granted those motions. Thereafter, the magistrate stated that “the plaintiff appears to have been under the mistaken impression that this case would proceed entirely under seal” and reminded the plaintiff that if he wanted the documents sealed, he must comply with Local Rule 7A….
The court essentially granted the motion to unseal (1) the various motions to seal, (2) the motion to proceed anonymously, (3) the confidentiality agreement, (4) the motion for sanctions, (5) the proposed amended complaint, and a number of related items ( Except for some discovery-related matters and some modest redactions to the names of the parties, the names of their children and other identifying information). extract:
Consistent with First Circuit precedent, the court first asked whether the documents involved in the motion were judicial records, that is, “information upon which the court relies in determining the substantive rights of the litigants.” If the documents fall within the definition of judicial records to which the presumptive right of public inspection applies, the First Circuit directed the district court to “carefully balance the presumptive right of access against the competing interests involved in the particular case.” In doing so, the First Circuit warned that “only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records within the scope of the common law right of inspection.” In its analysis of each document, the court reviewed the redacted names of the parties and minor children to determine what effect the redaction would have on unsealing….
Mr. Doe and the Maine Trust are divided over whether his lottery win and lawsuit were newsworthy. Mr Doe described the Maine Trust’s motion to unseal as reflecting its “interest in satisfying the public’s thirst for sensationalism”. Mr Doe argued that privacy concerns for him and his children “overrode the public’s ‘pathological desire’ for sensationalism”. The Maine Trust responded that it “sought to report on a matter of public interest involving a government proceeding – the awarding of the $1.35 billion state lottery jackpot and the litigation arising from the award. This is the right thing for a newspaper to do.”
At this point, Maine Trust has the better argument. Federal courts are not arbiters of newsworthiness. This is an editorial, not a judicial decision. In rare cases, courts have restricted dissemination of even content that may be of interest to the public, such as the names of sexual assault victims or juvenile offenders, and many news organizations follow similar self-imposed guidelines. But these limitations are based on the notion that the information described is narrow. Kravitzwhere privacy concerns outweigh public access rights rather than a judge making editorial decisions about newsworthiness….
In the order, the court discussed the sealing of record entries in the case but did not yet address the use of pseudonyms, particularly if the case proceeds to trial. In 2022 and 2023, the First Circuit addressed the use of pseudonyms in litigation in three cases: U.S. Department of Energy v. Town of Lisbon78 F.4th 38 (1st Cir. 2023); U.S. Department of Energy v. MIT Technology.46 F.4th 61 (1st Cir. 2022); and U.S. Department of Energy v. .Mills, 39 F.4th 20 (1st Cir. 2022). As case law has repeatedly shown, even if a pseudonym is allowed during the discovery phase before trial, there is no guarantee that the court will approve the pseudonym when the case proceeds to trial.
In 2022, the First Circuit joined its sister circuits in holding that a district court order denying a motion to be heard under a pseudonym was immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine.if U.S. Department of Energy The holding is not limited to the pseudonym but also includes docket entries, Mr. Doe has the right to appeal the order, and the Maine Trust may have the right to appeal aspects of the order that are not favorable to him. In order to preserve the right of interlocutory appeal, the Court stays the execution of this order to the extent that the docket entries currently sealed are unsealed, and the Court redacts information in the order that Mr. Doe believes should remain sealed. If Mr. Doe does not appeal, the sealed docket entries and amendments in this order will be unsealed and unamended. If Mr Doe appeals, the stay will remain in effect pending further orders.
The second issue is the length of time the directive should maintain redacted and sealed record entries. As a precaution, the court concluded that sealed docket entries and amendments should survive the 30-day appeal period under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(a).
To further address this issue, for any contested sealing order, if the contents of the sealed matter are unknown to the party seeking to unseal, the court cannot publicly disclose the sealed information until the appeal is resolved. Open secrets are no longer secrets. Accordingly, in amending this Order and continuing to seal the sealed docket entries, the Court agrees with Mr. Doe’s broader view as to what should be sealed, although in this Order the Court declines to accept Mr. Doe’s view. The Court’s revisions do not reflect the Court’s opinion, only the Court’s efforts to preserve Mr. Doe’s right to appeal his opinion.
In doing so, the court recognized that the Maine Trust was entitled to know the basis for its ruling so that it could effectively argue the appeal, if there was one. The court reviewed the order to see whether it contained sufficient information to enable Maine Trust to understand its basis and present its arguments on appeal. Although the Maine Trust does not know the contents of the sealing and redaction information, there should be sufficient information about the court’s reasoning and order to allow it to participate in any appeal…
{Although Maine Trust reserves the right to do so, it does not currently seek to disclose the names of the parties or their minor children. Therefore, the court has not yet addressed the issue of whether the adult parties in this case can continue to litigate under pseudonyms.
