In Magistrate Judge Daphne Oberg's decision Thursday in Schur v. Berntsen, self-represented plaintiffs had sued, "generally alleging Defendants are involved in 'sex trafficking, … labor traf[f]icking, harass[ ]ment, [and] hate crimes.'"
In this case, Plaintiffs alleged Nathan Schur met Ms. Berntsen through a dating application and Ms. Berntsen later sexually assaulted him, filed a false police report about him, threatened him with guns registered to another person, and "continued harassing [him] and asking for sexual favors." They alleged both defendants filed a protective order against Mr. Schur, "making him fear for his safety in the state of Utah." They further alleged Ms. Berntsen "intimidated Mr. Schur and his family in their political asylum case." According to the complaint, Mr. Schur obtained his green card in 2015 but Ms. Berntsen then tried to interfere with his citizenship "with her attempts to turn [Mr.] Schur into a sexual slave." Plaintiffs also allege [plaintiffs] Ana Maria Ravines de Schur (Mr. Schur's mother) and Jessica Johannes were traumatized by Ms. Berntsen's threats against Mr. Schur and by viewing a video of the assault.
The case was dismissed in 2022, largely because plaintiffs had alleged violations of criminal statutes that didn't provide for civil enforcement in private lawsuits, and because the allegations didn't support any claim "under 18 U.S.C. § 1595, which provides a private right of action for victims of slavery and trafficking":
The complaint alleges Mr. Schur was sexually assaulted and harassed, but it does not allege the defendants held him in a condition of peonage, involuntary servitude, or forced labor. And a general allegation that Ms. Berntsen is attempting to make Mr. Schur a "sexual slave" is insufficient to allege the defendants are guilty of or benefitted from trafficking him into slavery. Additionally, the complaint does not allege that either Ms. Ravines de Schur or Ms. Johannes are victims of slavery or trafficking by the defendants—and 18 U.S.C. § 1595 only provides a private right of action for victims. For these reasons, the complaint fails to state a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1595. And the court is unable to conceive of any other federal cause of action under which the complaint could state a claim.
(Presumably the plaintiffs could sue for ordinary torts, such as battery, but they didn't do so, presumably because such a claim would have had to be brought in state court.) A year later, defendant sought to have the case sealed, but the Magistrate Judge said no:
Ms. Berntsen alleges she and her son … have been victims of Mr. Schur's harassment and Ms. Berntsen is the repeated victim of domestic violence by Mr. Schur. She asserts she has a protective order against Mr. Schur, which he has violated….
Ms. Berntsen seeks to seal the entirety of the case, in other words, to restrict public access to all documents in the court's file. However, she has not advanced interests sufficient to outweigh the significant public interest in access to the case or any particular documents in it. Although Ms. Berntsen states an interest in having personal identifiers and protected information redacted, she has not identified any personal identifiers or protected information in any public filings. And although she refers to the rule governing motions to strike improper evidence, this case was dismissed with prejudice before reaching any evidentiary stages. There is no evidence to strike.
This leaves Ms. Berntsen's general claims that she is a victim of Mr. Schur and has a protective order against him—and that this case constitutes harassment and damages her reputation and that of her son.
There is no question this case involves allegations of a sensitive nature, such as sexual assault. However, in her filing, Ms. Berntsen also makes allegations of sensitive nature against Mr. Schur, including that he has harassed her, violated a protective order, and repeatedly committed domestic violence against her. In other words, the court file contains documents that could prove embarrassing or sensitive to both sides, for different reasons. While it may be difficult to have sensitive information in public view, sealing a case is a drastic remedy. It is a request to make the parties' controversy and the court's rulings disappear entirely from public view.
Ms. Berntsen has not shown she has a protectable privacy interest or that any injury is likely to occur if the file is not sealed. Nor has she established that any right of privacy she may have outweighs the public's presumptive right to the contents of court files. An allegation of continued harassment or reputational damage is insufficient to abrogate the public's right to know what happens in its courts.
If such allegations were sufficient to justify sealing a case, most cases would be sealed. By nature, cases involve allegations against a party which the party most often strenuously disagrees with. But the public right of access to judicial records is premised on the idea that the public must be able to evaluate a court's decision-making process. Ms. Berntsen has not demonstrated a countervailing interest sufficient to overcome the presumption of open access. Accordingly, her motion to seal the case is denied.
The post No Sealing for Defendant After Pro Se Plaintiffs' Sex Trafficking Allegations Were Dismissed appeared first on Reason.com.
