According to Justice John Woodcock's opinion today: Doe v. Smith (PretiFlaherty's Sigmund D. Schutz and Alexandra A. Harriman and I represent the media intervenors, and my student Timon Amirani joined our motion):
An intervening local newspaper brought a motion to release sealed court record items when a lottery winner sued his former partner and mother of his minor children to enforce the terms of a non-disclosure agreement.
On November 14, 2023, John Doe, acting under an assumed name, filed a civil action in this court against Sara Smith, another assumed name, alleging that he violated a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) and caused damages to the plaintiff. The plaintiffs also sought equitable relief, including an injunction against Mr. Smith. In the complaint, Mr. Doe claims that he was the winner of the Maine State Lottery, that Mr. Smith is the mother of his minor daughter, and that Mr. Smith “entered into an NDA to promote the safety and security of John Doe.” , [herself]and their daughters” and “to avoid irreparable harm from allowing the media or the general public to discover; Among other thingsJohn Doe’s identity, physical location, and assets.”
Mr. Doe filed several motions to have documents filed in this case sealed based on his belief that he would suffer irreparable harm if his name were made public, and the court granted these motions. The magistrate has since suggested that “the plaintiff appears to be under the misconception that this matter will proceed entirely in private,” and reminded the plaintiff that he must comply with Provincial Rule 7A if he wishes to have documents sealed.
The Court largely granted (1) the various motions to seal, (2) the motion to disqualify, (3) the nondisclosure agreement, (4) the motion for sanctions, (5) the proposed amended complaint and portions thereof. Related items (except for some discovery issues and minor modifications to party names, children's names, and other identifying information). extract:
Under First Circuit precedent, the court first asks whether the documents that are the subject of this motion are judicial records, i.e., “material upon which the court relies in determining the substantive rights of the litigants.” If a document falls under the definition of a judicial record subject to presumptive public access, the First Circuit directs district courts to “carefully balance presumptive access and the competing interests involved in a particular case.” In doing so, the First Circuit cautioned that within the scope of the common law right of access, “only the most compelling reasons can justify nondisclosure of judicial records.” In analyzing each document, the court reviewed documents with redacted names of parties and names of minor children to determine how the redactions would affect unsealing…
Mr. Doe and the Maine Trust disagree about whether his lottery win and filing this lawsuit are newsworthy. Mr. Doe characterized the Maine Trust's motion to unseal as reflecting “an interest in satisfying the public's thirst for sensationalism.” Ms. Doe claims that her and her children's privacy concerns “ignore the public's 'pathological craving' for sensationalism.” The Maine Trust responds: “We seek to report on matters of public interest related to government proceedings, namely the $1.35 billion state lottery jackpot payout and litigation resulting from that award. That is what the newspaper does.”
The Maine Trust has a better argument on this point. Federal courts are not arbiters of newsworthiness. This is a private decision, not a judicial decision. In rare cases, courts restrict distribution of content that may be of public interest, such as the names of sexual assault victims or juvenile offenders, and many media outlets follow similar guidelines of their own. However, this limitation is based on the notion that the scope of information is narrow, as described below. KravetzWhen privacy concerns outweigh public access rights, judges are not making editorial decisions about news value.
In the order, the court discussed sealing record items in the case and specifically did not reach the issue of the use of pseudonyms if the case proceeds to trial. In 2022 and 2023, the First Circuit addressed the use of pseudonyms in litigation in three cases: Doe vs Lisbon Town78 F.4th 38 (1st Cir. 2023); Doe v. Mass. Inst. of technology., 46 F.4th 61 (1st Cir. 2022); and Doe v. mills, 39 F.4th 20 (1st Cir. 2022). As case law has repeatedly shown, allowing pseudonyms during trial preparation provides no guarantee that the court will approve the use of pseudonyms once the case goes to trial.
In 2022, the First Circuit joined its sister circuits in ruling that a district court order denying a motion to proceed under an assumed name is immediately appealable under the collateral injunction doctrine. if doe If it extends beyond a pseudonym to a docket entry, Mr. The Doe may have the right to appeal this order and the Maine Trust may have the right to appeal adverse aspects of this order. To preserve the right of interlocutory appeal, the court is staying this order to the extent of releasing currently sealed case record items, and the court is redacting the information in the order that Mr. Doe asserts should remain sealed. Mr. If the Doe does not appeal, the sealed record entries and redactions of this order will remain unsealed and unredacted. Mr. If Doe appeals, his stay will remain in effect until further order.
The second question is how long this order should remain modified and the docket entries should be sealed. As a precaution, the court concluded that sealed record items and redactions should remain open for the 30-day appeal period under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(a).
To resolve further issues, if the party seeking unsealing does not know the contents of the sealed content, the court may not release the sealed information to the public until the appeal is resolved. An open secret is no longer a secret. Therefore, in modifying this order and continuing to seal sealed case record items, the court agreed with Mr. Doe's broader view of what should be sealed. Although the court declined to accept Mr. Doe's view in this order. The Court's edits do not reflect the Court's opinion, but only the Court's efforts to protect Mr. Doe's right to appeal the opinion.
In doing so, the court recognizes that the Maine Trust has a right to know the basis of the decision so that it can effectively appeal, if any. The court reviewed the order with a view to whether it contained sufficient information to enable the Maine Trust to understand the grounds and present its arguments on appeal. The Main Trust must have sufficient information about the court's reasoning and order to be able to participate in the appeal, even if it does not know the contents of the sealed and redacted information…
{Despite its right to do so, Maine Trust does not currently seek to disclose the names of the parties or their minor children. Therefore, the court did not reach the question of whether the adult parties in this case could continue to litigate under assumed names.}