Court Rejects Attempt to Retroactively Seal or Pseudonymize Past Case

I wrote about this general issue earlier this month, and my post began with a discussion of several sealing requests submitted by the same litigant. Just today there was another decision in one of his cases, Del Nero v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc., handed down by Judge Joshua Wolson (E.D. Pa.):

Plaintiff Darren Del Nero's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case was dormant for more than 8 ½ years. Then, on May 24, 2021, Mr. Del Nero filed a motion asking the Court to seal the entire record and redact certain identifying information such as his name, address, and email address. On June 10, 2021, the Court granted Mr. Del Nero's motion in part and permitted him to submit docket entries that redact his street and email addresses. However, the Court denied Mr. Del Nero's request to seal the entire record or replace his name with a pseudonym. Now, Mr. Del Nero asks the Court to reconsider that decision. {Mr. Del Nero's filings indicate that he utilizes various aliases including Darren Del Nero, Darren Chaker, Darren Chaker-Del Nero, and David Hunter.} …

First, … [w]hile Mr. Del Nero attaches a few intervening decisions where other courts sealed some or all of the filings in those cases, none of those decisions are binding on this Court, and therefore the decisions do not constitute a change in controlling law….

Second, Mr. Del Nero's new evidence does not change the Court's prior analysis. To support his Motion for Reconsideration, Mr. Del Nero attached text messages that he received on June 11, 2021, the day after the Court issued its Order. According to Mr. Del Nero, the text messages contain "photos of headless males," and he believes that the "Bulgarian Mafia" sent him these photos in an effort to intimidate him for his cooperation with law enforcement in a pending criminal matter. However, as the Court set forth in its prior Memorandum, sealing Mr. Del Nero's identity in this case will not shield him from further harassment. The people who have targeted Mr. Del Nero know who he is, and, apparently, have his phone number as well. The Court cannot change that with a sealing order. The harassment of Mr. Del Nero, as disturbing as it may be, has nothing to do with Mr. Del Nero's involvement in this case, and sealing this case or Mr. Del Nero's identify in this matter will not shield him from further harassment….

Third, … Mr. Del Nero … continues to rely on California laws that do not govern the Court's analysis and does not assert any colorable basis for the Court to depart from the governing standards set forth by the Third Circuit….

Also, Mr. Del Nero maintains a fairly robust public presence online. Indeed, a simple Google search has identified at least two websites that appear to belong to him, and those sites contain pictures of him and links for visitors to contact him on his various social media accounts such as Facebook, flickr, LinkedIn, StackExchange, Twitter, Vimeo, and Pinterest. See https://www.darrenchaker.com/ (last accessed on Aug. 11, 2021); https://www.darrenchaker.us/ (same). Even Mr. Del Nero's motion references the fact that he provided an interview to Fox News as a witness to a violent crime, and he included a link to view that interview online. None of this conduct is consistent with the relief that Mr. Del Nero seeks in his motion, and such conduct belies Mr. Del Nero's assertion that "having such material in the public record could be a death sentence."

Finally, the Court notes that Mr. Del Nero's Motion contains both his street and email addresses, both of which the Court has permitted him to redact from filings. In addition, Mr. Del Nero attached as exhibits certain court decisions that appear to be under seal in those cases. Thus, the Court will permit these materials to be redacted from public view.

In light of the foregoing, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff Darren Del Nero's Application to File Under Seal and Motion for Reconsideration of Ex Parte Motion to Seal Records … is DENIED;
2. The Clerk of Court shall keep Mr. Del Nero's Motion … under seal until further Order of this Court;
3. On or before August 20, 2021, Mr. Del Nero shall provide the Court with a redacted version of his Motion, redacting his address information, as well as Exhibits A, D, E, and L, which appear to be under seal in other cases. Mr. Del Nero may send electronic versions of the redacted documents to [the Court]. If Mr. Del Nero does not provide the Court with redacted documents, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to unseal the Motion without further notice to Mr. Del Nero ….

Comments

[captcrisis]

I tried a case once which the Appellate Division sua sponte anonymized when it got to them. Both me and my adversary were surprised.

[DaivdBehar]

The public knowledge of personal information is not harmful. Death threats are harmful. If the lawyer profession were updated, those threats would be put through an AI algorithm, and the sender would be traced and would be sent a fine of $500, for a first offense. If he refused to pay, his bank accounts would be traced, with Lifelock technology. The fine would be automatically deducted. That could be done many times until the threats stop. That is an effective legal system, not the idiotic situation described above. The legal system is like a bad Polish joke. (All the Poles I have ever met have been highly intelligent, effective, reliable people.)

[Squire Al]

Perhaps public knowledge of personal information is not harmful in itself but are you comfortable with the idea that if you file a Complaint in a civil matter contesting the decision of the Social Security Administration that when a decision is reached in Federal Court and the Judge writes a decision explaining the result which of necessity will recount large volumes of personal history and medical information will now be available by a google search on just your name? Might that dissuade a person from filing what they believe at least is an improper Government action? Making the filing anonymous by using only initials is a coming practice but by no means a perfect solution. But it is hard to deny that this is a genuine concern that would not be solved by the kind of fines you suggest since it is not threats that are the issue.

[DaivdBehar]

The private medical information is harmful when it is used against you. Sue the misusers.

[Squire Al]

In Social Security cases the file in Federal Court is not sealed but restricted to anyone other than the litigant representative. However, the docket sheet is accessible and the opinions that are issued, which generally include a large amount of personal information and medical information is fully accessible via PACER and otherwise. There has been a strong move to at least make those opinions more anonymous by only using initials for the name the Plaintiff with several Districts issuing orders to only use initials or individual Judges simply issuing decisions this way. This was actually the recommendation of the Judicial Conference in 2018 and only now being implemented in an ad hoc way. It is also not foolproof since a little effort can still produce the decision if the full name is still on the docket as it generally is. But this does limit the ability to do a google search on a person’s name and pull up any decision in a Social Security case that contains that personal and medical information.