Rothenberg v. Pluczenik

Background

Plaintiff Chaya Rothenberg filed a letter-motion on behalf of both parties asking the court to seal the complaint. The filing stated that the action had been resolved, that the complaint had been publicly filed, and that Plaintiff intended to file a notice of voluntary dismissal after the court ruled on the sealing request. The parties argued that the complaint concerned private and personal matters between them and that sealing would not prejudice third parties or compromise ongoing proceedings.

The motion stated that no responsive pleading had been filed, no discovery had been exchanged, and no disputed legal or factual issues had been adjudicated. It argued that the complaint had little or no judicial significance because the dispute had been resolved.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that court filings are subject to a First Amendment right of access and a common-law right of access. The court also recognized that certain compelling interests may outweigh those access rights. It concluded, however, that the letter did not identify what was compelling about the interests allegedly at issue and did not cite authority supporting the requested sealing.

The court rejected the argument that the private nature of the dispute was enough to justify sealing, explaining that many lawsuits involve disputes between private parties.

Ruling

Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied the motion to seal the complaint. The denial was without prejudice, meaning the opinion did not bar the parties from making another request. The opinion does not state whether a later sealing motion or notice of voluntary dismissal was filed.

Effect

The ruling denied the parties’ request to remove the complaint from public access at that time. It addressed access to the court filing and did not decide the underlying dispute between the parties.