UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

WAYNE G. DOBSON, :

Civil Action No. 11-2924 (JBS)

Petitioner, :

v. : O P I N I O N

KAREN BALICKI, :

Respondent. :

APPEARANCES:

Wayne G. Dobson, Pro Se

#437073

South Woods State Prison

215 Burlington Road South

Bridgeton, NJ 08302

Robin A. Hamett

Assistant Prosecutor

Camden County Prosecutor’s Office

25 North Fifth Street

Camden, NJ 08102

Attorney for Respondent

SIMANDLE, Chief Judge

Respondent has filed a motion to seal (docket entry 14) in

this habeas case filed by Petitioner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. Petitioner has filed opposition to the motion (docket

entry 15).

For the following reasons, the motion will be granted.

BACKGROUND

Respondent filed this motion to seal along with their

Response to Petitioner’s habeas petition. Respondent seeks to

admit, as part of the state court record attached to that

Case 1:11-cv-02924-JBS Document 16 Filed 09/19/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 778
Response, Petitioner’s state Pre-Sentence Investigation Report

(“PSIR”); however, they seek to file it under seal, pursuant to

Local Civil Rule 5.3, “given the confidential nature of the

information contained therein.” (Brief, p. 2).

Respondent argues that under New Jersey state law, PSIRs are

not a matter of public record; rather, they are confidential to

the parties. The sealing of the report falls within the purview

of Local Civil Rule 5.3(a)(3). (Brief, p. 4).

Petitioner argues that the report could be redacted, and

that sealing the report would “strike at the core of the reason

for public access.” (Brief in Opposition, docket entry 15-1, pp.

4-5).

DISCUSSION

In this District, Local Civil Rule 5.3 governs all motions

to seal or otherwise restrict public access to both materials

filed with the Court and judicial proceedings themselves. See

Allyn Z. Lite, N.J. Federal Practice Rules, Comment 1 to L. Civ.

R. 5.3 (Gann 2012). Under L. Civ. R. 5.3(c)(2), a party seeking

an Order to seal materials or judicial proceedings must describe:

(a) the nature of the materials or proceedings at

issue, (b) the legitimate private or public interests

which warrant the relief sought, (c) the clearly

defined and serious injury that would result if the relief sought

is not granted, and (d) why a less restrictive alternative to the

relief sought is not available.

The Court finds that under the standard enunciated above,

there is good cause to seal Petitioner’s state PSIR. First, the

2

Case 1:11-cv-02924-JBS Document 16 Filed 09/19/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 779
PSIR is a material that should be sealed under the rules

governing the State of New Jersey, and thus falls within the

purview of L. Civ. R. 5.3(a)(3). Presentence investigation

reports are subject to rules of confidentiality. While N.J. Civ.

R. 3:21-2(a) allows the PSIR to be furnished to the defendant and

prosecutor, the PSIR should not be made a matter of public

record. See State v. DeGeorge, 113 N.J. Super. 542, 544 (App.

Div 1971); see also State v. Boiardo, 82 N.J. 446, 463 n.14

(1980). Moreover, presentence investigative reports in federal

criminal cases are presumed to be confidential. See generally

Lite, supra, Comment 3b to Local Criminal Rule 32.1.

Second, there is a clear interest to protect the

confidentiality and privacy concerns of Petitioner that outweighs

any public interest in gaining access to the court-filed document

(PSIR). Finally, there does not appear to be any less

restrictive alternative to protect disclosure of this

confidential material. Given the confidential nature of all the

information contained therein, redaction does not seem an

adequate method to protect disclosure. Thus, the Court

recognizes that sealing the PSIR is necessary to protect

Petitioner’s privacy interests and there is no less restrictive

alternative available than sealing the PSIR at this time. See

Oliver v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21136

(D.N.J. Mar. 26, 2007) (Hochberg)(granting defendant’s motion to

3

Case 1:11-cv-02924-JBS Document 16 Filed 09/19/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 780
seal diagnostic and evaluative assessments of plaintiff prisoner

because there was no less restrictive alternative to protect the

prisoner’s privacy interest).

Therefore, this Court will grant Respondent’s motion to seal

the PSIR.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Respondent’s motion to seal

Petitioner’s state PSIR, pursuant to L. Civ. R. 5.3, will be

granted. An appropriate Order follows.

s/ Jerome B. Simandle 

JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Chief Judge

United States District Court

Dated: September 19, 2012

4

Case 1:11-cv-02924-JBS Document 16 Filed 09/19/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 781