Martin et al v. St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
KIERRA MARTIN, et al., 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
v. 	) 	Case No. 4:25-cv-00086-SEP
)
ST. LOUIS METROPOLITAN POLICE 	)
DEPARTMENT, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Kierra Martin’s Motion to Seal Case, Doc. [9]. For
the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.
FACTS AND B ACKGROUND
On January 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants St. Louis Police
Department and Council Tower Apartments, alleging violation of her constitutional rights. Doc.
[1]. Plaintiff alleged that she found a loved one dead on the floor and the reporting police officer
failed to investigate properly. Doc. [1]; Doc. [6] (summarizing Complaint). Plaintiff’s claims
were dismissed on August 7, 2025, for failure to state a claim. Doc. [6]. On November 4, 2025,
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Seal Case, Doc. [9]. In her motion, she requests that the
Court seal “sensitive information” and “[r]edact[] all names [and] addresses from public view.”
Doc. [9] at 1.
DISCUSSION
There is a “common-law right of access to judicial records.” IDT Corp. v. eBay, 709
F.3d 1220, 1222 (8th Cir. 2013). When evaluating motions to seal, the “court must first decide if
the documents in question are ‘judicial records,’ and if so, must next consider whether the party
seeking to prevent disclosure has overcome the common-law right of access.” Flynt v.
Lombardi, 885 F.3d 508, 511 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting IDT Corp., 709 F.3d at 1222-23). “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)). “[T]he weight to be given the presumption of
access must be governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial
Case: 4:25-cv-00086-SEP Doc. #: 11 Filed: 01/20/26 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
power and [the] resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts.” IDT
Corp., 709 F.3d at 1224 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995)).
Plaintiff moves to file the entire case under seal. In her motion, she requests that the
Court seal “sensitive information” and “[r]edact[] all names [and] addresses from public view.”
Doc. [9] at 1. Although Plaintiff’s filing includes forms that cite Eastern District of Missouri
Local Rule 13.05 and its requirements, Plaintiff failed to follow Local Rule 13.05 in filing her
motion. Among other deficiencies, she failed to file a memorandum in support of sealing or
redacted copies of the documents for which she is requesting sealing, making it difficult for the
Court to assess precisely what she regards as “sensitive information.” On the Court’s review, her
case file does not appear to contain any confidential information. The only addresses it contains
are for Plaintiff herself and appear to be erroneous. See Docs. [4], [8], [10] (noting mail returned
undeliverable from three different addresses). And Plaintiff names “Kimberly Martin” and
“other children, siblings” as other co-Plaintiffs. Doc. [1]. Plaintiff provides no compelling
reason for sealing such information that might outweigh the public’s right of access to the courts.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Seal Case, Doc. [9], is DENIED.
Dated this 20th day of January, 2026.
____________________________________
SARAH E. PITLYK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-00086-SEP Doc. #: 11 Filed: 01/20/26 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>