Opinion
O2-CV-562F (Consent).
March 29, 2005
PAUL STEPHANSKI, Upstate Correctional Facility, Malone, New York, Plaintiff Pro Se.
MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF MONROE COUNTY, MICHAEL J. NOLAN, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, of Counsel, Rochester, New York, Attorney for Defendant.
DECISION and ORDER
JURISDICTION
The parties have consented to proceed before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The matter is before the court on the Plaintiff's motion "to seal the instant case, deleate (sic) personal information from record controlled by Rule 5.4 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the Western District of New York" (Doc. No. 36).
BACKGROUND and FACTS
Plaintiff originally filed a petition for habeas corpus relief on August 6, 2002 (Doc. No. 1). After efforts to exhaust administrative remedies, his second amended petition was filed on December 7, 2004 (Doc. No. 52).This motion was filed on June 16, 2004 (Doc. No. 36). Plaintiff seeks the deletion of personal information in the record, including his inmate identification number, social security number, medical records, employment history and financial information. Plaintiff seeks this relief because he states that he is the victim of identity theft.
Defendant submitted an affirmation in opposition to the motion on September 3, 2004 (Doc. No. 39). Defendant opposes the motion on the ground that Plaintiff has not overcome the presumption of accessibility of court documents, has not made the necessary showing to support the relief requested, and has failed to narrowly tailor his request.
The court deemed oral argument unnecessary. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
DISCUSSION
Both the common law and the first amendment protect the public's right of access to court documents. Matter of New York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110, 114 (2d Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 977 (1988); United States v. Gerena, 703 F.Supp. 211, 212-13 (D.Conn. 1988). The right of access, however, is not absolute. It can be overcome by a showing that placing the documents in question under seal will further other substantial interests, for example, a criminal defendant's right to a fair trial or a third party's privacy interests. New York Times Co., 828 F.2d at 116. Nonetheless, court documents may be sealed only if "specific, on the record findings are made demonstrating that `closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.'" Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1986) (" Press-Enterprise II") (quoting Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 510 (1984) (" Press-Enterprise I")); accord New York Times Co., 828 F.2d at 116.
Sealing of a case, or a paper filed in a case, is a decision made by the court on the basis of balancing the public's right to access court proceedings and the litigants' rights to privacy and protection of confidential matters. See Livecchi v. Rochester Police Dept, 2004 WL 1737379, *1 (W.D.N.Y. August 2, 2004). This court's own Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.4 restates the basic principle that, "there is a presumption that Court documents are accessible to the public and that a substantial showing is necessary to restrict access."
The court's research has uncovered no authority for the sealing of documents or the deletion of personal information based on concerns regarding identity theft. Accordingly, the court concludes that such concerns do not overcome the public's right to access. Plaintiff has presented no other information from which the court could conclude that sealing of the case or deletion of information is essential to preserve higher values. Additionally, Plaintiff did not identify with specificity any papers he sought to seal or redact, and his request is not narrowly tailored to serve that interest.
CONCLUSION
The Plaintiff's motion to seal the record and delete personal information (Doc. No. 36) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.