USVI Public Records

Document text

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX __________________________________________ ) JULIE BEBERMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 2014-020 ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE and ) SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY, IN ) HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) Attorneys: Julie Beberman, Esq., Alexandria, VA Pro se Joycelyn Hewlett, Esq., St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For the Defendants MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion to File, Under Seal, Grounds for Requesting to Seal Portions of Response to Order to Show Cause and Entirety of the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction on Privacy Act Claim.” (Dkt. No. 19). In ruling on Plaintiff’s previous Motion to File Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction on Privacy Act Claim Under Seal (Dkt. No. 9) and “Motion to Respond to Order to Show Cause Under Seal” (Dkt. No. 14), the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order on May 21, 2014, setting forth the legal standard a movant must meet to warrant the sealing of a document. (Dkt. No. 18). Specifically, the Court wrote that the movant Case: 1:14-cv-00020-AET-RM Document #: 22 Filed: 05/24/14 Page 1 of 3 2 must show that a “clearly defined and serious injury” would occur if the information were disclosed, and that sealing is “essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve [those values].” Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1071 (3d Cir. 1984) (quoting Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of California, Riverside Cnty., 104 S. Ct. 819, 824 (1984)). Because Plaintiff made no showing regarding the nature of the information that she seeks to seal, the reason sealing is essential, the harm she would suffer in the absence of sealing, or that the request to seal was narrowly tailored, the Court concluded that Plaintiff had not met her burden. (Dkt. No. 18). Plaintiff now seeks permission to file, under seal, the basis for her requests to file her motions under seal, and further urges the Court to order Defendants’ opposition and any reply to be sealed as well. Apparently undaunted by the Court’s earlier ruling, Plaintiff again ignores the legal standard for sealing and offers nothing by way of support to overcome the presumption of openness. Instead, claiming that she “cannot meet her heavy burden of indicating the nature of the ‘private’ information that she seeks to protect without revealing that information,” (Dkt. No. 19 at 2), Plaintiff cites Publicker for the proposition that the Court should conduct an in camera review of her justification for sealing, to determine whether to grant her motions to seal. (Dkt. No. 19 at 2). In order to obtain an in camera review a party must make a threshold showing of some factual basis adequate to support the need for such review. United States v. Zolin, 109 S. Ct. 2619, 2631 (1989) (applying threshold in attorney-client privilege context); Kerr v. U. S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. of California, 96 S. Ct. 2119, 2120 (1976) (request for in camera review requires a showing of specific basis for request). After such showing has been made, the “decision whether to engage in in camera review rests in the sound discretion of the district Case: 1:14-cv-00020-AET-RM Document #: 22 Filed: 05/24/14 Page 2 of 3 3 court.” Id. 109 S. Ct. at 2631. Plaintiff has failed to make any threshold showing in her instant Motion to warrant an in camera review. As “dicey” as the question may be, the Court simply rejects the notion that it is impossible for Plaintiff to provide any information regarding the nature of the information that she seeks to protect and the harm that she would suffer if the information is disclosed without revealing the information itself. (Dkt. No. 19 at 1–2). Plaintff has already acknowledged that “some of the facts and arguments that Beberman intends to make in response to the Order to Show Cause do not implicate the Privacy Act . . . .” (Dkt. No. 14 at 1 n.1). If in briefing the venue issue accordingly, Plaintiff presents a sufficient basis for sealing or in camera review of additional information, the Court will entertain Plaintiff’s request at that time. UPON CONSIDERATION of Plaintiff’s “Motion to File, Under Seal, Grounds for Requesting to Seal Portions of Response to Order to Show Cause and Entirety of the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction on Privacy Act Claim,” it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have up to and including May 30, 2014 to show cause why venue is proper in this case; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants shall have up to and including June 6, 2014 to file any response; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have up to and including June 12, 2014 to file any reply. SO ORDERED. Date: May 24, 2014 ________/s/________ WILMA A. LEWIS Chief Judge Case: 1:14-cv-00020-AET-RM Document #: 22 Filed: 05/24/14 Page 3 of 3