DOE v. SMITH

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JOHN DOE, 	)
)
Plaintiff 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:23-cv-00423-JAW
)
SARA SMITH, 	)
)
Defendant 	)
ORDER ON THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO SEAL
The Plaintiff John Doe filed three motions to seal documents from the view of
third-party Intervenor Maine Trust for Local News, L3C. 	The first motion seeks to
seal several requests for hearings regarding discovery disputes, a response to one of
those requests, two joint discovery status reports, two written discovery documents,
and a deposition notice. 	See Motion to Seal Discovery Materials (ECF No. 154).
Neither Defendant Sara Smith nor the Intervenor objects to sealing the identified
discovery materials. 	See Defendant Response (ECF No. 157) at 1; Intervenor
Response (ECF No. 159) at 1. 	Because there is no right of public access to civil
discovery, see United States v. Kravetz, 706 F.3d 47, 55 (1st Cir. 2013), I hereby
GRANT Doe’s motion to seal the following discovery documents: ECF Nos. 26, 26-1,
120, 120-1, 120-2, 121, 121-1, 121-2, 122, 124, 129, and 130.1
Doe’s second motion requests to seal his partial objection to a discovery order
I entered earlier, see Order Re: Discovery Disputes (ECF No. 149), characterizing the
1 Doe also requests to seal ECF Nos. 131, 131-5, and 131-6. See Motion to Seal Discovery Materials at
2. However, I already sealed ECF No. 131 and all of its attachments. See Order (ECF No. 156).
Case 2:23-cv-00423-JAW Document 164 Filed 10/16/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
objection as a discovery motion to which the public has no right of access, see Motion
to Seal Partial Objection (ECF No. 155) at 1. 	The Intervenor takes no position on
sealing the objection, see Intervenor Response at 1, while Smith opposes doing so on
the ground that it reveals no confidential information, see Defendant Response at 2.
I decline to seal Doe’s partial objection because it is decidedly not a discovery
motion; rather, it is a challenge to a court order that requests judicial review to
determine whether any part of that order is “clearly erroneous or . . . contrary to law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Unlike the discovery process,
judicial decisions—and the mechanisms by which they are challenged—are not
traditionally private, and there is no indication that public access to an objection such
as this would hamper judicial review of the contested order. Cf. Anderson v. Cryovac,
Inc., 805 F.2d 1, 10-13 (1st Cir. 1986) (discussing why there is no common law or
constitutional right of public access to civil discovery materials). 	It is also well
established “that public monitoring of the judicial system fosters the important
values of quality, honesty and respect for our legal system.” Kravetz, 706 F.3d at 52
(quoting In re Providence Journal Co., Inc., 293 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2002)). 	Because
maintaining public access to Doe’s objection best furthers these policy goals, and the
objection itself contains no confidential information, I hereby DENY Doe’s motion to
seal his partial objection. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(d) (“The court may order that a filing
be made under seal without redaction.” (emphasis added)); see also Local Rule 7A.
Case 2:23-cv-00423-JAW Document 164 Filed 10/16/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Doe’s third motion presents an unopposed request to seal the parties’ joint
discovery 	status 	report 	and 	proposed 	amendment 	to 	the 	scheduling 	order.2
See Motion to Seal Joint Discovery Status Report and Proposed Amendment to
Scheduling Order (ECF No. 160); Joint Discovery Status Report and Proposed
Amendment to Scheduling Order (ECF No. 161). Congruent with my order on Doe’s
first motion, and in light of the parties’ agreement, I hereby GRANT Doe’s motion to
seal ECF No. 161. See Kravetz, 706 F.3d at 55.
Lastly, Smith objects to sealing Doe’s motions to seal, arguing that the motions
themselves reveal no confidential information and should therefore remain publicly
available in the interest of transparency. See Defendant Response at 2. Upon review
of 	the 	relevant 	motions, 	and 	in 	keeping 	with 	the 	Court’s 	prior 	order,
see Order on Motion to Unseal (ECF No. 71), I see no basis for Doe’s motions to seal
to remain sealed and hereby ORDER ECF Nos. 151, 154-155, and 160 unsealed.
NOTICE
In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may
serve and file an objection to this order within fourteen (14) days after being
served with a copy thereof.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right
to review by the District Court and to any further appeal of this order.
Dated: October 16, 2024
/s/ Karen Frink Wolf
United States Magistrate Judge
2 The parties are reminded that motions to seal “shall include a statement whether there is agreement
of the parties to the sealing,” Local Rule 7A(a) (emphasis added), which meaningfully aids the Court’s
efficient resolution of these issues.
Case 2:23-cv-00423-JAW Document 164 Filed 10/16/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>