Lewis v. Laz Parking Ltd., LLC

Background

Andre Lewis, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims based on diversity jurisdiction for breach of contract, defamation, and tortious interference with business relationships. He alleged that he entered into a settlement agreement with Laz Parking that included confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions, and that the defendants breached those provisions and caused professional and reputational harm. The court had previously allowed Lewis to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.

Motion to Seal

Lewis asked the court to seal the entire case, including all filings, exhibits, and court records, and to restrict access to the parties, their lawyers, and the court. The court denied that request. It explained that complaints and other court submissions are judicial documents subject to a strong presumption of public access under both common-law principles and the First Amendment.

The court held that Lewis’s concerns about damage to his reputation, career prospects, business interests, and future employment did not outweigh the public’s right to access the records. The court stated that Lewis or the defendants could later ask to seal a specific document containing information about the alleged confidential settlement agreement. Lewis could also seek narrower, specific redactions supported by particular explanations.

The court noted that the action temporarily had restricted viewing. It directed Lewis to notify the court within 30 days if he wanted to withdraw the action, amend the complaint, or request specific and narrowly tailored redactions. If he did not provide that notice, the court would direct the Clerk of Court to remove the viewing restrictions and allow the action to proceed publicly.

Service on Laz Parking

Because Lewis was permitted to proceed without prepaying fees, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Laz Parking. The Clerk of Court was directed to prepare the required service form, issue a summons, and provide the Marshals Service with the necessary papers.

The court explained that Lewis’s prior mailing and emailing of documents did not constitute valid service because a summons had not been issued and service must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. The court also stated that the time to serve would run for 90 days after the summons was issued. Lewis was required to notify the court in writing of any address change, and the court warned that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

Address for Juan Irizarry

Lewis alleged that Juan Irizarry resided in Texas but did not provide an address where he could be served. Because Lewis was representing himself, the court directed Laz Parking’s counsel to provide a service address for Irizarry within 30 days after Laz Parking was served. After receiving the address, the court would issue an order directing the Marshals Service to serve Irizarry.

Disposition

Judge Garnett denied Lewis’s motion to seal the entirety of the action or complaint. The court directed service on Laz Parking and ordered Laz Parking’s counsel to provide a service address for Irizarry. The opinion did not reach the merits of Lewis’s contract, defamation, or interference claims.