Doe v. Noem
- John Tunheim
- 0:22-cv-03142
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Doe v. Noem, Judge Foster granted the parties’ sealing motion, keeping two filings sealed and ordering another unsealed.
The order affects John Doe, non-party individuals whose confidential information appears in the filings, the parties’ sealed court filings, and the public’s access to those records.
What happened
In Doe v. Noem, the parties asked the court to continue sealing filings containing confidential and sensitive information about John Doe and people who are not parties to the case. The filings concerned the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, which had not yet been decided.
The court said judicial records are generally accessible to the public, but that access can be limited when confidentiality interests outweigh it. The court had previously found that the information in the filings should remain protected and reached the same conclusion after reviewing the new request.
Judge Foster granted the joint sealing motion as follows: the clerk must keep the filings at ECF Nos. 96 and 116 under seal, while unsealing the filing at ECF No. 123 because its public version contained no redactions.
The detailed version
- Doe v. Noem · No. 0:22-cv-03142
- John Tunheim
- July 22, 2025
Background
The court considered the parties’ Joint Motion Regarding Continued Sealing. The motion was filed in connection with the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The defendants had filed their supporting memorandum and reply under seal at ECF Nos. 96 and 123, and John Doe had filed his response under seal at ECF No. 116. The parties also filed publicly redacted versions at ECF Nos. 97, 117, and 124.
The parties agreed that ECF Nos. 96 and 116, along with the redacted portions of ECF Nos. 97 and 117, should remain sealed because they contained confidential and sensitive information about John Doe and individuals who were not parties to the case. The parties also noted that the publicly filed ECF No. 124 contained no redactions of the sealed document at ECF No. 123.
Legal Standard
The court explained that parties may seal civil-case documents only under a statute or rule, or with the court’s permission. Judicial records carry a common-law right of public access, but that right is not absolute. Depending on how important the documents are to the court’s exercise of its authority and to public oversight, a party seeking continued sealing may need to show either a compelling reason or another countervailing reason that justifies confidentiality.
Analysis
The court said it would reach the same result under either standard because it had previously considered similar sealing requests and had repeatedly found sealing appropriate to protect John Doe and non-involved third parties. The court concluded that the documents at ECF Nos. 96 and 116 and the redacted portions of ECF Nos. 97 and 117 contained information that justified overcoming the public’s right of access. The court therefore found that continued sealing was appropriate.
The joint motion did not address ECF No. 123. However, because the public version at ECF No. 124 contained no redactions of that document, the court found that ECF No. 123 should be unsealed.
Order
Judge Dulce J. Foster granted the parties’ Joint Motion Regarding Continued Sealing. The clerk was directed to keep ECF Nos. 96 and 116 under seal and to unseal ECF No. 123. The opinion does not state that the underlying motion for judgment on the pleadings was decided by this order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.