Stone v. Louisiana Department of Revenue, No. 2:2012cv02182 - Document 7 (E.D. La. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 6 MOTION to Seal Case filed by Joanne Stone. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/1/2014.(blg)
Download PDF
Stone v. Louisiana Department of Revenue Doc. 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JOANNE STONE CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 12-2182 LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ORDER AND REASONS SECTION I Before the Court is a motion1 to seal this case filed by plaintiff, Joanne Stone. Plaintiff believes that the record of the existence of this lawsuit “is preventing [her] from employment, getting jobs and working.”2 She requests that the Court seal the entire record of this case to prevent these perceived effects and because “[c]onfidential information exists in the files.”3 There is “a strong public interest in maintaining accurate records in civil cases” and “in free and open access to court documents.” McGough v. Corrections Corp. of Am., No. 1:07-0039, 2008 WL 313064, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 1, 2008) (denying motion to expunge defendant’s name from civil lawsuit so defendant would not have to disclose existence of lawsuit). Thus, “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure demonstrate a policy in favor of full record retention.” See Alkaabi v. DHS, No. 09-5476, 2010 WL 4668337, at *1 (E.D. La. Nov. 5, 2010) (Fallon, J.) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 79(a)(1)) (denying motion to expunge records that plaintiff had filed a lawsuit). Although plaintiff asserts that she is presently experiencing adverse consequences as a result of the continued existence of a record of this lawsuit, under these circumstances the Court does not 1 R. Doc. No. 6. Plaintiff filed a similar motion to seal a related case. See Stone v. La. Dep’t of Revenue, No. 12-3022 (E.D. La. Dec. 20, 2012), R. Doc. No. 47. 2 R. Doc. No. 6, at 1. 3 R. Doc. No. 6-1, at 1. 1 Dockets.Justia.com find that outweighs the general principle that court records should be public, accessible, and unsealed.4 Nor has plaintiff satisfied Local Rule 5.6 by articulating what specific confidential information should be sealed, or why sealing is necessary or authorized by governing case law. See LR 5.6(B). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, October 1, 2014. ________________________________ LANCE M. AFRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4 The Court expresses no opinion whether plaintiff may pursue some other relief based on her belief that potential employers have declined to hire her because of her prior litigation. 2