A sound order from White v. Chenenko, No. 1:18-cv-12108 (D. Mass. Jan. 2, 2019) (Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley):
The motion to seal 8 is DENIED. The common law presumes a right of access to judicial records, see Nixon v. Warner Commcns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978), and "[o]nly the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records," In re Gitto Global Corp., 422 F.3d. 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2005) (alteration in original) (quoting FTC v. Standard Fin. Mgmt. Corp., 830 F.2d 404, 410 (1st Cir. 1987)). Here, in his two-sentence motion, the plaintiff asks that this action be sealed because it "shows up online" and he wants "to avoid backlash and maintain as much privacy for all parties involved since the case never reached court." These bare assertions of harm do not justify sealing the case.