Case Document 5 Filed 07/31/18 Page 
JUL 3 2018

Clark, US. District Bankruptcy
Courts for the District of Columbia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICTOF COLUMBIA

 

NORMA AMABILIA on
both her behalf and as next friend on behalf of
her child, 

Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 18-cv-1700 (BAH)
V.

I

Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell
JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS, .
in his individual capacity and in his
of?cial capacity as Attorney General of the
United States, at al.,

Defendants.

 

 



Pending before the Court is plaintiff Norma Amabilia Lopez-Sales?s Motion to Seal
certain address information for the plaintiff ECF No. 4, which information is
included in the sealed Exhibit A to the plaintiff?s motion. See LCVR 40.i(g) (stating that the
Chief Judge shall ?hear and determine . . . motions in any case not already assigned? including.
?motion[s] to seal the complaint?); LCVR (?Absent statutory authority, no case or
document may be sealed without an order from the Court?). The plaintiff?s motion is granted.

Generally, ?[t]he ?rst ?ling by or on behalf of a party shall have in the caption the . . .
full residence address of the party,? and ?[f]ailure to provide the address information within 30
days of ?ling may result in the dismissal of the case against the defendant.? LCVR 
Courts have, in special circumstances, permitted a party to ?le such information under seal when
a court determines that the plaintiff? privacy interests outweigh ?the public interest in Open A
proceedings and on fairness to the defendant.? Nat ?1 Ass ?11 of Water?ont Emp ?rs v. Chao

587 F. Supp. 2d 90, 99 (D.D.C. 2008) (RMC). In balancing these competing interests,
1

Case Document 5 Filed 07/31/18 Page 2 of 3

. ?[t]he starting point? is ?a strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial proceedings.?
Hardaway v. D. C. Hous. Auth, 843 F.3d 973, 980 (DC Cir. 2016) (quoting EEOC v. Nat ?l
. Children?s Ctr., Inc, 98 F.3d 1406, 1409 (DC. Cir. 1996)). The six factors, originally identi?ed
in United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293 (DC. Cir. 1980), that courts should consider in
determining whether that presumption may be overcome include:

(1) the need for public access to the documents at issue; (2) the extent of previous

public access to the documents; (3) the fact that someone has objected to disclosure,

and the identity of that person; (4) the strength of any property and privacy interests

asserted; (5) the possibility of prejudice to those opposing disclosure; and (6) the

purposes for which the documents were introduced during thejudicial proceedings.
Metlzfe, Inc. v. Fin. Stability Oversight Council, 865 F.3d 661, 665 (DC. Cir. 2017) (quoting
Nat ?1 Children ?s Ctr.,l98 .3d at 1409 (citing Hubbard, 650 F.2d at 317?22)).

Here, the plaintiff seeks to maintain her personal address information under seal. Pl.?s

Mot. at 1. The need for public access to this information is low, and this information has not
previously been disclosed to the public. In addition, the plaintiff?s privacy interests are strong.
The plaintiff, an asylum seeker who established a credible fear of torture during her credible fear
interview with the Department of Homeland Security, see Compl., Ex. 14, Record of
Determination/Credible Fear Worksheet at 4, ECF No. 1-16, ?fears being located by the people
she was ?eeing,? P1.?s Mot. jl 4. In addition, the plaintiff avers that ?[t]his case has gained media
attention? and that she wishes to ?ensure that media and others do not have her address.? The
government has not objected to this sealing request. Thus, at this early stage of litigation, the
Court is persuaded that the plaintiff has met her burden of showing that her privacy interests in
maintaining her personal address under seal outweigh the public?s presumptive and substantial

interest in knowing the details of judicial litigation. The public?s interest in the plaintiff?s

address is de minimis compared to the significant risk of deadly violence to which public

 Case Document 5 Filed 07/31/18 Page 3 of 3

identi?cation of this information might expose the plaintiff and her family. See Horowitz v.
Peace Corps, 428 F.3d 271, 278 (DC. Cir. 2005) (?If there is no public interest in the disclosure
of certain information, ?isomething, even a modest privacy interest, outweighs nothing every
time.?? (quoting Nat ?1 Ass ?11 of Retired Fed. Emps. v. Homer, 879 F.2d 873, 879 (DC. Cir.
Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the plaintiff?s Motion to Seal is GRANTED.

  

Date: July 31, 2018

 

BERYL A. HOWELL
Chief Judge