UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DANIEL ERICKSEN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15-CV-10088

v. HONORABLE GEORGE CARAM STEEH

J. DOE #1, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (Doc. 29)

This federal civil rights lawsuit arose out of plaintiff’s claim that a search during a

routine stop at an international border crossing, which led to his arrest on misdemeanor

drug charges, violated his constitutional rights. On July 1, 2015, this court granted

defendants’ motion to dismiss. Now before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a protective

order to seal all documents or to redact his name from all court documents. Plaintiff argues

sealing the record is appropriate because he pled guilty to the state misdemeanor drug

charges under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act (“HYTA”), and as long as he complies with

the requirements of HYTA, all proceedings regarding that criminal charge shall be “closed

to public inspection.” Mich. Comp. Laws § 762.14(4). Thus, plaintiff argues his identity in

this federal civil rights action should be concealed in order to further HYTA’s objective of

shielding young adults from the stigma of criminal records for immature acts. T h e

government opposes sealing the record on the grounds that plaintiff has not provided a

compelling reason that outweighs the strong presumption of the public’s right to access

court records. The court’s inherent power to seal court documents is subject to the “long

-1-

2:15-cv-10088-GCS-MJH Doc # 33 Filed 09/01/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 432
established legal tradition” of open access to court documents. Brown & Williamson

Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1177 (6th Cir. 1983). Court records should be

sealed only in exceptional cases where compelling reasons exist. In re Knoxville NewsSentinel Co., Inc., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983). Similarly, requests for anonymity in

a lawsuit should be granted sparingly only in exceptional circumstances. See Citizens for

a Strong Ohio v. Marsh, 123 F. App’x 630, 636 (6th Cir. 2005). 

District courts have broad discretion in determining whether to grant a protective

order to protect a plaintiff’s anonymity. Some of the factors for the court to consider are (1)

whether the plaintiff seeking anonymity is suing to challenge government activity; (2)

whether prosecution of the suit will compel the plaintiff to disclose information “of the

utmost intimacy,” (3) whether the litigation compels plaintiff to disclose an intention to

violate the law, thereby risking criminal conviction; and (4) whether the plaintiff is a child. 

Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff can satisfy only the first

consideration. This suit did not involve the sort of sensitive and highly private information

which courts have found deserving of anonymity such as birth control, abortion,

homosexuality, or religious beliefs capable of subjecting plaintiffs to considerable

harassment. See Porter, 370 F.3d at 560-61; Southern Methodist Univ. Ass’n of Women

Law Students v. Wynne & Jaffee, 599 F.2d 707, 712-13 (5th Cir. 1979). Unlike cases

where courts have allowed for plaintiffs to remain anonymous, plaintiff here did not put

himself in jeopardy of any hostile public reaction from those opposing his viewpoint. See

Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 186 (5th Cir. 1981). In addition, plaintiff did not risk criminal

conviction by bringing this lawsuit nor disclose any intention to violate the law, as plaintiff

had already presented at the border crossing as a turn-around motorist and criminal

-2-

2:15-cv-10088-GCS-MJH Doc # 33 Filed 09/01/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 433
proceedings had already commenced against him which were not dependant on any

disclosures made in this lawsuit. Finally, plaintiff is 19 years old and courts have generally

only granted protection to very young children. Porter, 370 F.3d at 561. Under the four

factors identified by the Sixth Circuit in Porter, and considering the record as a whole, this

is not the sort of case deserving of an exception from the general rule that court

proceedings should remain open and the identity of parties should not be concealed. 

Plaintiff argues that the ability of future employers to learn of his misdemeanor drug

conviction, which but for this lawsuit would not be a matter of public record, constitutes the

extraordinary circumstances necessary to justify a departure from the general rule that

court documents remain open to the public. Plaintiff forfeited his ability to keep secret his

actions at the international border, however, when he sued United States Customs and

Border Patrol agents in their individual capacities alleging violations of his constitutional

rights. Plaintiff has not shown a compelling reason for this court to deviate from the

requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) that parties sue in their own names.

In his reply, plaintiff argues that because none of the defendants are named in the

dismissal order, redacting his name from the case caption and the first sentence of the

court’s opinion, which are the only two places he is identified by name in that order, would

be consistent with the court’s treatment of the defendants, and would not hinder a reader

from understanding the import of that decision. Although the court did not name the

defendants in its dismissal order, four of the defendants are specifically named on the

court’s docket sheet as well as in the parties’ motion papers, and their names are readily

available to the general public. Thus, affording plaintiff the anonymity that he seeks would

not be consistent with the public nature of the defendants’ identities which have come to

-3-

2:15-cv-10088-GCS-MJH Doc # 33 Filed 09/01/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 434
light only by virtue of this lawsuit. Finally, the fact that the public could understand the

court’s dismissal order even if plaintiff is allowed to sue under a fictitious name is not

dispositive, as the same argument could be made in virtually every case. The purpose of

requiring parties to identify themselves by name is not merely to further the public’s

understanding of judicial decisions, but simply to comport with the First Amendment’s

interest in ensuring that the entirety of court proceedings remain public property. See Craig

v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 374 (1947). 

Having found that plaintiff has failed to show compelling reasons to deviate from the 

long-standing tradition of open access to court documents, plaintiff’s motion for a protective

order (Doc. 29) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2015

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

September 1, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk

-4-

2:15-cv-10088-GCS-MJH Doc # 33 Filed 09/01/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 435