NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

WILLIAM NEELD, :

Civil Action No. 11-1731 (JBS)

Petitioner, :

v. : O P I N I O N

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al., :

Respondents. :

APPEARANCES:

William Neeld, Pro Se

#4308443-488377A

Northern State Prison

168 Frontage Road

Newark, NJ 07114

Jason Magid

Assistant Prosecutor

Camden County Prosecutor’s Office

25 North Fifth Street

Camden, NJ 08102

Attorney for Respondents

SIMANDLE, Chief Judge

Respondents have filed a motion to seal (docket entry 28) in

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

2254. Petitioner has not opposed the motion.

For the following reasons, the motion will be granted.

BACKGROUND

Respondents filed this motion to seal along with their

Response to Petitioner’s habeas petition. Respondents seek to

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

Case 1:11-cv-01731-JBS Document 32 Filed 12/20/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 1598
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).

Respondents argue 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).

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

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.

2

Case 1:11-cv-01731-JBS Document 32 Filed 12/20/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 1599
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,

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). 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, J.)(granting

defendant’s motion to 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 Respondents’ motion to seal

3

Case 1:11-cv-01731-JBS Document 32 Filed 12/20/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 1600
the PSIR.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Respondents’ 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: December 19, 2012

4

Case 1:11-cv-01731-JBS Document 32 Filed 12/20/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 1601