Can't Get Case Sealed Just Because "People Ask Me About [It]"

The plaintiff says she "thought the whole it was going to be confidential"—but court cases are public.

From yesterday's decision by Magistrate Judge Patricia Cohen (E.D. Mo.) in Contejean v. Ameren:

This matter is before the Court on self-represented Plaintiff's letter to the Court requesting that her "case be removed from the internet[,]" which the Court interprets as a motion to seal the "case." On July 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint bringing claims of race and age discrimination and retaliation under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.

Plaintiff requests the Court to "remove all information regarding her case from "the internet" because "people ask me about this[.]" Plaintiff states she "thought the whole time it was going to be confidential." Plaintiff further states that "[i]f there is another process [she needs] to follow in order to have it removed please advise."

There is a common-law right of access to judicial records. Although not absolute, there is "a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents[.]" While the Court has supervisory power over its own records and files, "only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records." Instead, "[s]ealing documents is generally appropriate when necessary to 'shield victim identities, protect trade secrets, secure matters of national security, honor the rules of sovereign nations, and conceal personal identifying information such as social security numbers or dates of birth.'"

Here, Plaintiff seeks to remove all references to her case from the "internet" based upon her desire for the case to remain "confidential." However, Plaintiff's desire for the case to remain "confidential" does not outweigh the Court's interest in preserving the common-law right of access to judicial records in civil proceedings. Accordingly, based on the record currently before the Court, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion to seal….

I've seen a few cases in which courts have granted such motions to seal, or to retroactively pseudonymize, presumably in order to protect a litigant's future employment prospects; I hope to write about one such cases shortly. But those decisions almost always lack any detailed legal analysis, and I think there's really no precedent supporting them; the Contejean decision accurately follows the legal rules.