Mandur v. Lowell Police Officer Vann et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
)
LEGURA MANDUR, 	)
Plaintiff, 	)
v. 	) 	Civil No. 26-cv-10115-ADB
)
LOWELL POICE OFFICER VANN, et al., )
Defendants. 	)
)
ORDER
BURROUGHS, D.J.
1. 	The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, [Dkt. No. 2], is ALLOWED.
2. 	The motion to seal case, [Dkt. No. 4], is DENIED. The Court is guided both by
First Circuit precedent and Local Rule 7.2.1 Because the public has a "presumptive" right of
access to judicial documents, United States v. Kravetz, 706 F.3d 47, 59 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing
Siedle v. Putnam Invs., Inc., 147 F.3d 7, 10 (1st Cir. 1998)), "'only the most compelling reasons
can justify non-disclosure of judicial records that come within the scope of the common-law
right of access.'" Id. (quoting In re Providence Journal Co., 293 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2002)). “[I]t
is proper..., after weighing competing interests, to edit and redact a judicial document in order to
allow access to appropriate portions of the document.” Kravetz, 706 F.3d at 62 (internal
quotation marks omitted). Here, there is not sufficient countervailing interests to justify sealing
the case in full. Plaintiff may wish to seek leave to file publicly available, redacted versions of
1 Local Rule 7.2 sets forth the process for having confidential information impounded or filed
under seal. Section 7.2(a) provides in pertinent part: “Whenever a party files a motion to
impound, the motion shall contain a statement of the earliest date on which the impounding order
may be lifted, or a statement, supported by good cause, that the material should be impounded
until further order of the court. The impounded material will be scanned and docketed in
CMECF and restricted from public access.”
Case 1:26-cv-10115-ADB Document 5 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 2

2
the pleadings on the docket. If so, she must file a motion and memorandum of law that complies
with Local Rule 7.2, demonstrating good cause for filing a redacted pleading. “What constitutes
‘good cause,’ and therefore what concerns can justify a document being filed under seal [or
portion thereof], depends on the nature of the filing.” Bradford & Bigelow, Inc. v. Richardson,
109 F. Supp. 3d 445, 447 (D. Mass. 2015). The Court will review the plaintiff’s filings, the
proposed redactions, and may accept, reject, or modify such proposed redactions.
3. 	The Clerk shall issue summonses for service of the complaint and send the
summonses, a copy of the complaint, and this Order to the plaintiff, who must serve the defendants
with these documents in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
4. 	The plaintiff may elect to have service made by the United States Marshals
Service (“USMS”). If plaintiff chooses to have service completed by the USMS, she shall
provide the agency with a copy of this order, all papers for service, and a completed USM-285
form for each party to be served. The USMS shall complete service as directed by plaintiff with
all costs of service to be advanced by the United States.
5. 	Plaintiff shall have 90 days from the date of this Order to complete service.
Failure to complete service in a timely fashion may result in dismissal of this action without prior
notice to plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Local Rule 4.1 (D. Mass).
SO ORDERED.
February 2, 2026 	/s/ Allison D. Burroughs
ALLISON D. BURROUGHS
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-10115-ADB Document 5 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 2