Opinion
ID No. 0310003717.
Decided: September 28, 2009.
ORDER
AND NOW, TO WIT, this 28th day of September, 2009, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
Findings of Fact
The Petition to seal the records of Errick Wright was filed on July 24, 2009. Errick Wright was found guilty by a jury on May 21, 2004 for Theft in Excess of $1,000, Criminal Mischief in Excess of $1,500, and two counts of Theft in Excess of $50,000. As a result, the petitioner is a convicted felon. On August 17, 2006, a civil judgment was entered against Wright in the amount of $9,105.00.
Parties' Contention
In his motion, the petitioner requests that all public records regarding the above captioned matter be sealed from any viewing by the public pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 5(g). Specifically, he claims that allowing these records to be viewed by the public "cause[s] him malicious and unnecessary harm, distracts his ability to obtain employment or other necessary life sustaining staples." He further alleges that the public scrutiny of the court records causes him harassment and public ridicule. The State responds arguing that Superior Court Rule 5(g) requires the petitioner to show good cause why the records should be sealed and that he has failed to meet this burden.
Defs.' Motion ¶ 2.
Discussion
Superior Court Rule 5(g) states, in relevant part, "Court Records or portions thereof shall not be placed under seal unless and except to the extent that the person seeking the sealing thereof shall have first obtained, for good cause shown, an order specifying those Court Records . . . or potions thereof which shall be placed under seal. . . ." The First Amendment gives the public access to criminal proceedings and those proceedings become matters of public record. This general rule of accessibility is limited by Superior Court Rule 5(g).
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 5(g)(2). This language is identical to Court of Chancery Rule 5(g). Ct. Ch. R. 5(g).
In re 2 Sealed Search Warrants, 710 A.2d 202, 206 (Del. Super. Ct. 1997).
This Court has not analyzed what constitutes a showing of good cause pursuant to Rule 5(g), but it appears from similar motions before the Court of Chancery that the record must contain highly sensitive and confidential information to amount to good cause. The Court of Chancery has repeatedly held that documents containing information about trade secrets, third-party confidential material, or nonpublic financial information provides good cause for sealing of records because such documents contain highly confidential information. On the other hand, good cause does not exist and records will not be sealed when the information is simply "embarrassing or unflattering."
Romero v. Dowdell, 2006 WL 1229090, at *2-*3 (Del. Ch. April 28, 2006).
In re Walt Disney Co. Derivative Ligit., 2004 WL 368938, at 1 (Del. Ch. February 24, 2004).
The petitioner has not shown that good cause exists to seal the records. The only support the petitioner provides are general allegations that public access to the records are making his life difficult. The petitioner's difficulty finding employment, exposure to public ridicule, and potential harassment does not outweigh the public's legitimate interest in court proceedings. Although public access to this information may cause the petitioner some discomfort in his life, these are some of the common consequences that follow one who is convicted of a crime. These allegations alone, therefore, are insufficient to establish good cause to seal the records.
For the above mentioned reasons, the defendant's Motion to Seal is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.