Treboux v. Trickey
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-04595
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Treboux v. Trickey, Judge McMahon denied Treboux’s motion to seal the case because her concerns did not overcome public access.
Ann Treboux’s request for a private court docket was denied, leaving the case records publicly accessible; the order also denied her permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
Treboux v. Trickey was a copyright case filed without a lawyer. The complaint had previously been dismissed for failing to state a claim, and the plaintiff later asked the court to seal the case and all its documents.
The plaintiff said she had not filed the case and that the case’s appearance on legal websites was harming her applications for housing and jobs. The court explained that court records are generally open to the public and that concerns about negative publicity are not enough to justify sealing them.
Judge Colleen McMahon denied the motion to seal. She also denied the plaintiff permission to appeal without paying filing fees, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Treboux v. Trickey · No. 1:19-cv-04595
- Colleen McMahon
- Mar. 23, 2020
Background
Ann Treboux filed this copyright-infringement action without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. The complaint named Anne Trickey, also identified as “Mx. Anne Trickey” and “going by Jeff Wentzel,” as the defendant. Treboux alleged that Trickey harassed her through telephone calls and emails and posted stolen images of Treboux’s artwork on social-media platforms. The court had dismissed the complaint on June 14, 2019, for failure to state a claim.
The court’s earlier dismissal order also discussed a virtually identical copyright complaint filed by Trickey against Treboux in the Northern District of California and warned that duplicative or frivolous litigation could lead to a filing injunction or another sanction. The court further noted a separate copyright action brought by Marc Tetro against Treboux in this District.
Motion to Seal
Treboux moved to seal “the above case and all documents.” She said she had not filed the case, did not know Trickey, and had learned about the California case by searching her name online. She also said that the docket appeared on several legal websites and that she could not remove it. She attributed alleged problems with apartment and job applications, and harassment of her daughter at school, to information about the case.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that the common law and the First Amendment protect public access to court records, although that right is not absolute. Under the Second Circuit’s three-part test, the court first determines whether the material is a judicial document; if so, it assesses the weight of the public-access presumption; and finally, it balances that presumption against countervailing interests such as privacy.
The burden was on Treboux, as the party seeking secrecy, to show that sealing was justified. The court held that concerns about adverse publicity or other negative effects were insufficient. It also reasoned that sealing this docket would not eliminate information about the case on other public websites or the public records of other litigation involving Treboux.
Ruling
Judge Colleen McMahon denied the motion to seal. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Treboux and note service on the docket. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.