From Magistrate Judge Anthony Patti (E.D. Mich.) Report and Recommendation in Lopez v. Chase, just adopted Thursday by Judge Shalina Kumar (quite correctly, I think):
Seven months [after filing this pro se case], Plaintiff filed three successive motions, all aiming to erase his case from the court docket in some fashion…. [A]ll three of Plaintiff's motions seek to seal this case, and order third parties to cease any publication or dissemination thereof. The Court should deny all three motions.
Unlike information merely exchanged between the parties, "[t]he public has a strong interest in obtaining the information contained in the court record." There is a "strong presumption" in favor of open court records. The party seeking to seal records before the court has the burden of overcoming that presumption and "[t]he burden is a heavier one than for a protective order [as]: 'Only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.'" …
Here, Plaintiff does not overcome the strong presumption against sealing records in civil cases. He requests sealing the case "due to concerns about privacy, security, and the potential for misuse of sensitive information." He further states that the risk of harm includes potential for identify theft, fraudulent use of personal details, reputational damage, and "physical security risks if sensitive information is misused." There is simply not enough information provided to meet Plaintiff's burden. This case has been closed for almost a year, and the documents which are apparently of concern to Plaintiff have been in the public record since that time. Moreover, it is Plaintiff himself who filed the documents in the public record, so this is not a situation where Plaintiff is timely objecting to private information being filed by an adversary.
