Judge John Woodcock issued an opinion today in Doe v. Smith, where media intervenors, represented by Sigmund D. Schutz, Alexandra A. Harriman of PretiFlaherty, and myself, along with my student Timon Amirani, brought a motion to unseal sealed court docket entries:
An intervening local newspaper filed a motion to unseal sealed court docket entries in a case where the winner of a lottery is suing his former partner, the mother of their minor child, to enforce a non-disclosure agreement…
John Doe, using a pseudonym, filed a civil action on November 14, 2023, against Sara Smith, also using a pseudonym, alleging breach of a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) and seeking damages. Mr. Doe, the lottery winner, claimed that Ms. Smith, the mother of his minor daughter, entered into an NDA to protect their identities and assets from public disclosure. Several motions to seal documents were filed by Mr. Doe to prevent his name from being revealed, which were granted by the Court. However, the Magistrate Judge reminded Mr. Doe to follow the local rules for sealing documents…
The court mostly granted the motion to unseal various documents, including motions to seal, the motion to proceed pseudonymously, the NDA, a motion for sanctions, the proposed amended complaint, and related items, with some redactions for privacy concerns. Here is an excerpt:
Following First Circuit precedent, the Court assessed whether the documents subject to the motion are judicial records that impact the litigants’ substantive rights. If the documents are considered judicial records with a presumptive right of public access, the Court must balance this right against other interests at stake in the case. The Court emphasized that only compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records. The Court reviewed each document with redacted names to determine the impact of unsealing…
Mr. Doe and the Maine Trust disagreed on the newsworthiness of his lottery win and lawsuit. The Maine Trust argued that reporting on the $1.35 billion lottery jackpot and resulting lawsuit is a matter of public interest, while Mr. Doe emphasized privacy concerns. The Court sided with the Maine Trust, stating that federal courts do not determine newsworthiness but rather focus on privacy concerns when restricting access to information…
The Court’s discussion focused on the sealing of docket entries and did not address the use of pseudonyms if the case proceeds to trial. Previous First Circuit cases have addressed the use of pseudonyms in litigation, highlighting that while allowed during discovery, their use at trial is not guaranteed…
The Court decided to stay the Order unsealing docket entries pending potential appeals by Mr. Doe or the Maine Trust. The Court also set a thirty-day period for the sealed entries and redactions to remain in place. Additionally, the Court noted that sealed information cannot be publicly revealed until the resolution of any appeal.
When a secret is made public, it ceases to be a secret. Despite Mr. Doe’s desire for a broader scope of sealed information, the Court agreed to redact the Order and maintain sealed docket entries in order to respect his wishes, even though the Court did not fully endorse Mr. Doe’s perspective. The redactions made by the Court were not a reflection of its own opinion, but rather an attempt to uphold Mr. Doe’s right to appeal the decision.
The Court recognizes that the Maine Trust has a right to understand the basis of the ruling in order to effectively present arguments in an appeal, should one be pursued. The Order was carefully reviewed to ensure that there was sufficient information for the Maine Trust to comprehend the reasoning behind the decision and to prepare for any potential appeal, despite the sealed and redacted information.
At this time, the Maine Trust is not requesting the disclosure of the names of the parties or their minor child. Therefore, the issue of whether the adult parties can proceed under pseudonyms has not been addressed by the Court.
Source link
