"There Is No Basis for Preventing the Public from Learning That Natale Seeks Recourse for the Defendants' Alleged Misconduct"

A reminder to libel plaintiffs (and other plaintiffs).

From Monday's opinion by Judge Denise Casper in Natale v. Barstool Sports, Inc. (D. Mass.):

Pro se litigant Diana Natale has filed a civil complaint, in which she alleges that the defendants published defamatory false statements against her, invaded her privacy, and shared her personal information in a podcast [apparently Barstool's The Case] without her consent….

Natale has filed several ex parte motions to impound [i.e., seal]…. Natale asks that "names of the parties, the docket, and all documents filed herein to date" be impounded. She also asserts that, "because of the nature of [her] complaint and the parties involved," if the motions are denied, "this will be all over the internet at first light possibly compromising the case."

The Court DENIES these motions to impound. There is a long-standing common law presumption of public access to judicial records. "[P]ublic monitoring of the judicial system fosters the important values of quality, honesty and respect for our legal system." Although "it is within a court's discretion to curtail the common law presumption of public access, '[o]nly the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.'"

Here, Natale has not set forth an adequate basis for the Court to order the impoundment of the "names of the parties, the docket, and all documents filed" in this case. The thrust of Natale's claim is that the defendants have recently widely broadcasted false statements that, thirty years ago Natale and her then-minor children engaged in criminal or otherwise reprehensible misconduct. There is no "compelling reason" to curtail access to alleged misinformation that, even as alleged by Natale, is already largely available to the public. In addition, there is no basis for preventing the public from learning that Natale seeks recourse for the defendants' alleged misconduct….

The court also dismissed the case because of lack of federal jurisdiction over this sort of tort law claim (absent sufficient allegations, which Natale didn't provide, of total diversity of citizenship among the parties).