From Friday's decision by Judge James Boasberg in Kartte v. Davis:
Defendant Trevor Davis hired Plaintiff Felix Kartte in 2020 to work at Davis's security-consulting companies. Over the course of Plaintiff's brief employment and in the period following, Defendant allegedly called him offensive names, made threats, shared false information about him with third parties, and invented claims of extortion. Plaintiff thus sued, alleging, inter alia, defamation, discrimination, and fraudulent misrepresentation. After over six months of litigation, the parties reached a settlement agreement.
They now seek to seal the entire case record. The Court denies that Motion because the documents at issue are judicial records that bear a strong presumption in favor of public access, which the parties have not overcome here….
Kartte began his employment with Davis in September 2020 as the Director of European Operation of CounterAction, LLC, one of Davis's companies. Davis owns and operates both CounterAction, LLC and ToSomeone, Inc., which provide consulting services including "threat assessments, risk management, and information operations." After Plaintiff began his new position, the two parties' relationship quickly became acrimonious, with Davis firing him in a text message in November 2020. The Court's prior Opinion provides all the gory details….
The right of "public access to judicial records 'is a fundamental element of the rule of law, important to maintaining the integrity and legitimacy of an independent Judicial Branch.'" The common-law right "antedates the Constitution," and "serves to produce an informed and enlightened public opinion." …
The parties' position that their filings are not judicial records [to which the right of access applies] is untenable. The unsealed documents on the docket have all been readily available to the Court and, for the most part, were "intended to influence the [C]ourt." For example, the Complaints, Motion to Dismiss, Opposition, Reply, and Answer and Counterclaim are archetypical attempts to persuade the Court; others such as the Motions for Extension of Time, Motion to Seal Exhibits, Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint, and Motion to Seal the Case resulted, or will result, in judicial decisions. In addition, we apply the strongest presumption of public access to the Memorandum Opinion issued by this Court on May 6, 2022, which, as an official decision of the Court, is considered the "quintessential business of the public's institutions," and is "core 'to the transparency of the court's decisionmaking process.'"
