An interesting decision today by Magistrate Judge Kevin Doyle in Milazzo v. Anthony (D. Vt.), dealing with an issue I had litigated and written about before:
Self-represented Plaintiff Bryan Milazzo brings this action against Peter Anthony [based on diversity of citizenship] …. Plaintiff seeks "compensatory and exemplary damages for injuries suffered as the result of Defendant Peter Anthony aiding and abetting … sexual activity against Plaintiff, a minor …."
Prior to bringing this federal case, Plaintiff filed complaints against Defendant in New York and Vermont state court based on the same or similar facts as alleged in his federal Complaint. The New York proceedings remain pending. The Vermont Superior Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint in 2023 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this Court on November 1, 2023….
Defendant sought to seal the motion to dismiss and various related documents (including the motion to file under seal itself), but the court said no. It began by noting the general presumption of public access to court records, which is especially strong as to potentially outcome-determinative filings such as motions to dismiss, and also "moderately strong" as to the exhibits and as to the motion to file under seal. It then explained why a special Vermont sealing rule didn't affect the analysis:
