JOHN DOE v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
| JOHN DOE |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MERRICK B. GARLAND and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE |
| 1:2022cv03345 |
| November 1, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Contract: Other |
| 09 U.S.C. ยง 0202 Award under Convention on Foreign Arbitral Awards |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 18, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
MINUTE ORDER (paperless) DENYING plaintiff's #4 Motion to Rebuttal the Memorandum and Order ("Pl.'s Mot"), which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration. See FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b) (providing that any pre-judgment order "may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities"). Although plaintiff, in his renewed motion, nominally addresses the sealing factors identified in United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293 (D.C. Cir. 1980), and the five factors for proceeding anonymously articulated in In re Sealed Case, 931 F.3d 729 (D.C. Cir. 2020), he does so in a cursory fashion with conclusory restatements of each factor. See Pl.'s Mot at 5-6. Moreover, the two purported justifications for plaintiff's motion--national security and adhering to the parties arbitration agreement--are insufficient to satisfy plaintiff's burden. First, while national security is normally a valid justification for sealing a case or allowing a party to proceed pseudonymously, see, e.g., Hubbard, 650 F.2d at 315-16 (noting that courts deny public access "to guard against risks to national security"); Doe 1 v. Benoit, No. 19-MC-00059, 2018 WL 11364383, at *3 (D.D.C. Nov. 20, 2018) ("Cases in which a pseudonym has been permitted generally involved other sensitive matters of national security or intimate details of the employee's life."), plaintiff simply requests the Court to "recognize the national security issues presented here, and to protect those interests" without identifying precisely what those interests are here. See Pl.'s Mot. at 4. Second, plaintiff cites the "privacy of the [arbitration] agreement between the parties" as a justification for sealing and proceeding pseudonymously, but the strength of the "customary and constitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings," United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1464 (D.C. Cir. 1995), is not diminished just because certain information has been subject to a protective order or confidentiality agreement entered into by the parties privately in an arbitration. See Grynberg v. BP P.L.C., 205 F. Supp. 3d 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2016) (denying motion to seal documents related to an arbitration settlement despite "the parties' [previous] agreements and several court orders" granting sealing, because defendants had "failed to explain what prejudice would result from the disclosure of these exhibits"); United States v. ISS Marine Servs, Inc., 905 F. Supp. 2d 121, 141 (D.D.C. 2012) ("[T]he mere fact that a case was, at one time, placed under seal is not a reason, in and of itself, to indefinitely maintain that seal and thus negate the public's access to judicial records, which the D.C. Circuit has described as 'fundamental to a democratic state.'" (quoting Hubbard, 650 F.2d at 315 n.79)); Doe, Inc. v. Roe, No. 21-mc-43 (BAH), 2021 WL 3622166, at *3 (D.D.C. June 3, 2021) (denying reconsideration of denial of motion to seal and stating that "[i]f plaintiff wishes to keep certain information sealed, it must specifically describe why the information is sensitive beyond bare reference to the fact that it was designated confidential in an arbitration[,] or that the information might be embarrassing or pose reputational risk to plaintiff"). In short, plaintiff has not meaningfully addressed the Hubbard and In re Sealed factors in his motion for reconsideration, and his proffered justifications are insufficient to justify his request, so his motion is denied. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on November 18, 2022. (lcbah4)
|
| Filing 4 MOTION for Reconsideration re #3 Order on Sealed Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal, by JOHN DOE. (Attachment: #1 Amended Petition)(zsl) |
|
Filing 3
MEMORANDUM & ORDER DENYING plaintiff's #2 Sealed Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Memorandum & Order for further details. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on November 8, 2022. (lcbah4) (Main Document 3 replaced on 11/8/2022 to correct order) (zsl).
|
| Filing 2 SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL filed by JOHN DOE. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: #1 Unredacted Petition, #2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Exhibit) (zsl) |
| Filing 1 PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD against MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 203352.) filed by JOHN DOE. (Attachment: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(zsl) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the District Of Columbia District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
