Court Opinion

ID: 9948711
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-07 19:01:35.256017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:46.589836
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50707           Document: 118-1           Page: 1    Date Filed: 03/07/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                                 United States Court of Appeals
                                                                               Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________                              FILED
                                                                         March 7, 2024
                                    No. 22-50707
                                   ____________                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                              Clerk
Sealed Appellant,

                                                                  Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                          versus

Sealed Appellee,

                                               Movant—Appellee.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 5:19-CV-727
                   ______________________________

Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Jones and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
       Plaintiff sued Defendant for allegedly posting explicit pictures of
Plaintiff online and otherwise harassing Plaintiff and her family. Plaintiff and
Defendant have since settled, but we must still address whether the district
court abused its discretion by unsealing the case. Because the district court
applied an incorrect standard for determining when judicial records may be
sealed, we vacate and remand.

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50707         Document: 118-1           Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/07/2024

                                     No. 22-50707

                                           I.
       Plaintiff and Defendant1 engaged in an affair for approximately a year.
Plaintiff ultimately ended the affair. She alleges, however, that Defendant
retaliated by harassing Plaintiff and her family, including by posting sexually
explicit images of Plaintiff online.           Plaintiff sued Defendant for public
disclosure of private facts and intrusion on seclusion, later amending her
complaint to also include claims against the adult websites Defendant
allegedly used to post explicit images. Plaintiff requested and received both
a temporary restraining order and a temporary injunction against Defendant.
       After she filed her original complaint and the district court granted the
TRO, Plaintiff moved to seal the case, citing the “nature and content of
documents on file,” the “anticipated filing” of exhibits “depicting
pornographic images” and “sexually-related texts and messages,” and
“reference[s] . . . in pleadings or materials on file” to Plaintiff’s family,
including her daughter. The district court granted the motion, ordering that
all pleadings and documents on file in the case—including all future filings—
be sealed. Nonetheless, some case documents were published online on legal
websites and databases. When Plaintiff discovered this, she asked the district
court to issue an order preventing the websites from publishing the
information. Defendant opposed the motion and moved to unseal the case.
The district court denied Plaintiff’s motion to prevent publication, but it also
denied Defendant’s motion to unseal, noting that the case would remain
sealed with attorney-only electronic access. Defendant later moved again to
unseal. The district court largely denied this request, granting only in part to

       _____________________
       1
         We refer to the original parties as “Plaintiff” and “Defendant” to maintain the
status quo pending the district court’s determination on remand. For simplicity, we use
“Defendant” to refer only to the original defendant, rather than the adult-website
defendants.

                                           2
Case: 22-50707       Document: 118-1       Page: 3     Date Filed: 03/07/2024

                                 No. 22-50707

allow parties and attorneys electronic access to certain documents but
continuing to completely restrict public access.
       Professor Eugene Volokh then moved to intervene. Volokh is a law
professor who specializes in the First Amendment and desires to write about
this case. He explained that this case came to his attention after one of the
district court’s orders turned up in a scheduled daily Westlaw search for
cases mentioning sealing and the First Amendment.              Volokh sought
permission to intervene so he could move to unseal.
       The district court vacated its sealing order and ordered that all filings
be unsealed. The district court stated that it originally granted Plaintiff’s
motion to seal primarily on the basis that some filings would include “lewd
or graphic sexually explicit photographs.” However, the district court
explained that, after evaluating each document line-by-line, the filings for the
most part reflected “procedural and administrative information” and did not
justify sealing. Nor did any filings contain information that was “lewd or
graphic.” In addition, though the allegations in the parties’ pleadings
contained “unpleasant, embarrassing, and distasteful information,” the
parties’ claims and counterclaims contained nothing “sufficiently lewd or
graphic” to merit sealing them. The district court also warned Defendant
that he could not “file any documents that contain[ed] lewd or graphic
information about Plaintiff.”
       Plaintiff appealed. She has since settled her claims against Defendant,
but we must still determine whether the case should remain under seal. The
district court stayed its unsealing order pending appeal.          This court
additionally granted Plaintiff’s motion to seal the appeal.

                                       3
Case: 22-50707            Document: 118-1           Page: 4       Date Filed: 03/07/2024

                                         No. 22-50707

                                              II.
        The public has a common law right of access to judicial records. Nixon
v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597–98 (1978).2 “Judicial records
are public records.” Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 416 (5th
Cir. 2021).3 Public access serves important interests in transparency and the
“trustworthiness of the judicial process.”                 June Med. Servs., L.L.C. v.
Phillips, 22 F.4th 512, 519 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting BP Expl. & Prod., Inc. v.
Claimant ID 100246928, 920 F.3d 209, 210 (5th Cir. 2019)). Sealing judicial
records is therefore “heavily disfavor[ed].” Id.
        This right of access, however, is “not absolute.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at
598. “Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files,” id.,
and, when appropriate, courts may order that case documents be filed under
seal, FED. R. CIV. P. 5.2(d). To determine whether a judicial record should
be sealed, the court “must undertake a case-by-case, document-by-
document, line-by-line balancing of the public’s common law right of access
against the interests favoring nondisclosure.” Le, 990 F.3d at 419 (internal
quotations omitted). Because of the court’s duty to protect the public’s right
of access, the district court must balance these interests even if the parties
agree to seal records. See, e.g., BP Expl. & Prod., 920 F.3d at 211–12
(“[P]rivate litigants should not be able to contract [the public right of access]
away. . . . [I]t is for judges, not litigants, to decide whether the justification

        _____________________
        2 There is also “a clear and strong First Amendment interest” in protecting access

to courtroom proceedings, at least in many criminal contexts. Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180,
185 (5th Cir. 1981). See also id. at 185 n.10; Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Ct., 478 U.S. 1, 7–10
(1986); United States v. Ahsani, 76 F.4th 441, 447 (5th Cir. 2023).
        3
          Plaintiff does not contest the threshold issue of whether the case documents
qualify as judicial records. See United States v. Sealed Search Warrants, 868 F.3d 385, 396
n.4 (5th Cir. 2017).

                                               4
Case: 22-50707           Document: 118-1           Page: 5      Date Filed: 03/07/2024

                                       No. 22-50707

for sealing overcomes the right of access.”). Sealing documents should be
the exception, not the rule. Le, 990 F.3d at 418.
        In Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., the Supreme Court observed
that courts have denied access to judicial records when those files “might
have become a vehicle for improper purposes,” such as when records are
“used to gratify private spite or promote public scandal.” 435 U.S. at 598
(quoting In re Caswell, 29 A. 259, 259 (R.I. 1893)). This certainly includes
lewd or graphic images. But “lewd or graphic” material does not constitute
the upper limit for what courts may seal or redact. Of course, courts may not
seal information merely because it could “lead to a litigant’s
embarrassment.” Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,
1179 (9th Cir. 2006).4 Many cases of a sensitive nature are typically open to
the public. Cf. BP Expl. & Prod., 920 F.3d at 211. However, a standard that
rests solely on whether material is “lewd or graphic” is underinclusive.
        That said, public information cannot be sealed. June Med. Servs., 22
F.4th at 520. And the district court must also consider whether alternative
measures, such as redaction or pseudonymity, would instead sufficiently
protect the privacy interests at issue. See, e.g., United States v. Ahsani, 76
F.4th 441, 453 (5th Cir. 2023) (noting that redaction is often, but not always,
“practicable and appropriate as the least restrictive means of safeguarding
sensitive information”).5

        _____________________
        4
          Nor is a nonparty child’s potential embarrassment sufficient to justify sealing
information about his or her parents. Such a rule would swallow the general presumption
against sealing.
        5
           District courts should also keep in mind other tools at their disposal to keep bad-
faith litigants in check, such as Rule 11 sanctions or striking material from the record under
Rule 12(f). See Callahan v. United Network for Organ Sharing, 17 F.4th 1356, 1364–65 (11th
Cir. 2021); Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 51–52 (2nd Cir. 2019).

                                              5
Case: 22-50707       Document: 118-1       Page: 6     Date Filed: 03/07/2024

                                  No. 22-50707

       Like with sealing and redaction, the pseudonymity analysis requires
the court to balance the private and public interests—even if the parties agree
to stay anonymous. Not many federal appellate courts have yet addressed
pseudonymity in the context of revenge pornography. But see Doe v. Smith,
429 F.3d 706, 710 (7th Cir. 2005) (instructing the district court to consider
on remand whether revenge-pornography plaintiff should be allowed to
proceed pseudonymously). However, there is “no hard and fast formula for
ascertaining whether a party may sue anonymously,” and “[t]he decision
requires a balancing of considerations calling for maintenance of a party’s
privacy against the customary and constitutionally-embedded presumption
of openness in judicial proceedings.” Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 186 (5th
Cir. 1981). Parties may not “proceed anonymously based on generalized
concerns.” June Med. Servs., 22 F.4th at 520 n.5. And courts should
reevaluate pseudonymity as the litigation moves along. Doe v. Mass. Inst. of
Tech., 46 F.4th 61, 73 (1st Cir. 2022); Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile
Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1069 (9th Cir. 2000).
       In vacating its sealing order, the district court correctly concluded that
this case should not be sealed on a wholesale basis. However, the district
court then applied a standard that too narrowly defined the privacy interests
that could justify sealing, and it failed to explain why any other asserted
privacy interests did not outweigh the presumption of public access.
       At minimum, all filings should be redacted for consistency with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a), which generally requires parties to
partially redact information such as Social Security numbers, financial
account numbers, birth dates, and names of minor children. In this case, it is
also clear that the balance of interests favors redacting material such as the
names of any additional family members, along with addresses and any other
contact information for Plaintiff and her family.

                                       6
Case: 22-50707           Document: 118-1           Page: 7      Date Filed: 03/07/2024

                                       No. 22-50707

        If Plaintiff desires any additional material sealed or redacted, on
remand she should identify each specific document or piece of information
and explain why each satisfies the analysis described above. 6
        The district court should also consider whether this case merits
allowing Plaintiff to use a pseudonym—even retroactively—and whether
Plaintiff timely filed her motion to seal. At oral argument, Volokh stated that
he has no objection to retroactively pseudonymizing the record.7                          As
discussed above, however, the parties’ consent does not end the analysis
when determining whether pseudonymization is appropriate. Instead, the
court must conduct its own balancing of the public and private interests at
stake. We express no view on that issue, leaving it for the district court to
address in the first instance.
        We vacate the district court’s unsealing order and remand to the
district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 8

        _____________________
        6
          For example, at oral argument, Volokh stated that he would not object to
redacting pictures of Plaintiff. Plaintiff has also pointed to material about Plaintiff’s
husband and daughter in Defendant’s discovery requests.
        7
          Volokh added the caveat that pseudonymizing the record would not require him
to pseudonymize his own writings to the extent that information about this case is already
in the public domain. See, e.g., Fla. Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524, 541 (1989) (“[W]here a
newspaper publishes truthful information which it has lawfully obtained, punishment may
lawfully be imposed, if at all, only when narrowly tailored to a state interest of the highest
order.”).
        8
          Nothing in this opinion merits sealing or redaction. It will therefore be made
available to the public. Nor should the appellate briefs be sealed. Before the appeal is
unsealed, however, Plaintiff may propose specific redactions in light of this opinion.

                                              7