"The logical conclusion of Plaintiff's argument is that whenever someone sues for defamation because of potentially embarrassing comments, the plaintiff should be allowed to sue anonymously and with the case under seal."
An attempt to seal a key document in a libel / breach of contract case filed by a former communication strategist for Julian Assange against a former lawyer for Edward Snowden.
"If the Court sealed the disputed materials, it would essentially conceal the very mechanism that REA used to perpetuate the scheme, leaving the public with little more than the judgment itself to establish the existence of the scheme."
... if you're asserting your own rights of access (which all of us have) to court records.
... by a federal district court decision yesterday, in a case brought by a pro se litigant in New Jersey.
Avoid motions "for Leave to File Under Seal Any and All Documents and Depositions Cited in Support of Any Motion, Response, Reply, or Appendix Filed by the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant."
Stephanie Gilliard argued "that offers of employment have been rescinded after Google searches of her name revealed the events of this case, namely her surreptitious recordings of her co-workers."
Unsurprisingly, the exact allegations that are said to be libelous don't appear in the complaint.
(Disclosure: I had filed an objection, on my own behalf, to the motion to seal.)
More than just a mixed metaphor -- it's a legal doctrine.
The plaintiff had pleaded guilty to, among other things, having sex with a minor (apparently when he was 21 and the minor was 15); the alleged libel stemmed from, among other things, reports of that crime.
That's what a New York trial court decision just posted online today held -- correctly, I think.
(1) If they're alleging sexual abuse. (2) If they're alleging they were libeled as sexual abusers. (3) Both. (4) Neither.
Since I've been blogging today about public rights of access to sealed files, I thought I'd pass this along.
This modal will close in 10