Travis v. Joplin Metro Credit Union, et al.

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
FREDRIC DARNELL TRAVIS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. 3:25-cv-05103-MDH
)
JOPLIN METRO CREDIT UNION et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Pro Se Motion to Seal Case. (Doc. 4). Defendant has not
filed Suggestions in Opposition and the time to do so has elapsed. Thus, the motion is now ripe
for adjudication on the merits. For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
“Generally speaking, there is a common-law right of access to judicial records, but that
right is not absolute.” Flynt v. Lombardi, 885 F.3d 508, 511 (8th Cir. 2018) (citing Nixon v. Warner
Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597–98 (1978), and IDT Corp. v. eBay, 709 F.3d 1220, 1222 (8th
Cir. 2013)). “This right of access bolsters public confidence in the judicial system by allowing
citizens to evaluate the reasonableness and fairness of judicial proceedings, and ‘to keep a watchful
eye on the workings of public agencies.’” IDT Corp., 709 F.3d at 1222 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S.
at 598) (internal citation omitted). “The decision whether to seal a judicial record is left to the
sound discretion of the trial court ‘in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular
case.’” Wishah v. City of Country Club Hills, 2021 WL 3860328, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 30, 2021)
(quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599). “Where the common-law right of access is implicated, the court
must consider the degree to which sealing a judicial record would interfere with the interests served
by the common-law right of access and balance that interference against the salutary interests
Case 3:25-cv-05103-MDH Document 15 Filed 03/16/26 Page 1 of 2

2
served by maintaining confidentially of the information sought to be sealed.” IDT Corp., 709 F.3d
at 1223. “The presumption of public access to judicial records may be overcome if the party
seeking to keep the records under seal provides compelling reasons for doing so.” Flynt, 885 F.3d
at 511 (citing In re Neal, 461 F.3d 1048, 1053 (8th Cir. 2006)).
Here, Plaintiff fails to state any compelling reason as to why this case should be sealed.
Plaintiff has included within his motion a “Notice of Statement of Indenture” requesting a private
evidentiary conference regarding his motion to seal stating, “due to urgent and exigent
circumstances 	and 	confidential 	trade 	secret, 	proprietary, 	private, 	special 	and 	restricted
information/evidence in support of my special equitable cause, either of which if revealed in
public, will cause irreparable harm to rights, property and interest.” (Doc. 4-2). Plaintiff never
expands nor provides this Court any context apart from that statement why sealing of this case is
warranted. As Plaintiff’s only claim is regarding the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Court cannot
glean any compelling reason why the presumption of public access to judicial records should be
overcome.1 For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s Pro Se Motion to Seal Case is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Pro Se Motion to Seal Case is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: March 16, 2026
/s/ Douglas Harpool______________
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 Plaintiff may still redact certain information in conformity with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2.
Case 3:25-cv-05103-MDH Document 15 Filed 03/16/26 Page 2 of 2