Mirabal v. DEUTSCHE BANK NAT’L TRUST CO.
- John Cronan
- 1:25-cv-07423
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Mario Mirabal v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., Magistrate Judge Netburn denied Mirabal’s request to seal his fee-waiver application.
Mario Mirabal’s request to keep his fee-waiver application from public view was denied. The order also addresses the information he must provide for possible service on the defendants and the public’s access to court records.
What happened
In Mario Mirabal v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., Mario Mirabal, who is representing himself, asked to file under seal an application to avoid paying court fees. He had already paid the filing fee but wanted fee-waiver status for possible U.S. Marshals service, litigation costs, and certain electronic court-record fees.
The court explained that the public generally has a strong right to access court documents. It found that Mirabal had not shown that the information needed to evaluate his assets was sensitive enough to justify sealing the application. The court encouraged him to redact bank-account numbers and Social Security or tax-identification numbers.
Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn denied the request to file the application under seal. She directed Mirabal to file it publicly if he still seeks fee-waiver status and said that, if status is granted, he must provide service addresses for the defendants. The order did not decide whether he qualifies for fee-waiver status.
The detailed version
- Mirabal v. DEUTSCHE BANK NAT’L TRUST CO. · No. 1:25-cv-07423
- John Cronan
- Sept. 18, 2025
Background
Mario Mirabal is representing himself and had paid the filing fee to begin this case. He asked to proceed without paying additional court fees so he could use the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants, avoid certain litigation expenses including electronic court-record access fees, and obtain court resources while experiencing financial strain.
Before deciding whether Mirabal qualified for that fee-waiver status, the court directed him to file an application requiring information about his assets. Mirabal then asked to file that application under seal.
Sealing standard
The court explained that both common law and the First Amendment protect public access to court documents. That right is not absolute, but a person seeking to seal court documents must overcome a strong presumption favoring public access and must show why sealing is justified.
The court found that Mirabal had not established that the information the court needed to review was sufficiently sensitive to justify sealing the application. The court encouraged him to redact bank-account numbers and Social Security or tax-identification numbers, but stated that those details were not necessary to the court’s inquiry.
Ruling and effect
The court DENIED Mirabal’s request to file the application under seal. It directed him to file the application on the public docket if he elects to continue seeking fee-waiver status. If that status is granted, he must provide service addresses for each defendant so the U.S. Marshals Service can serve them. If he does not seek fee-waiver status, or if the request is denied, he may request summonses and serve the defendants himself. The court also stated that fee-waiver status does not automatically provide free access to the electronic court-record system, although some access is free under the applicable fee schedule. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn encouraged Mirabal to contact the City Bar Justice Center’s Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Project about service alternatives. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 8.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.