Prisbrey v. State Auto Insurance Companies et al, No. 4:2021cv00124 - Document 110 (D. Utah 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 93 Motion to Seal Case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 7/21/23 (alt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Prisbrey v. State Auto Insurance Companies et al Doc. 110 Case 4:21-cv-00124-DN-DBP Document 110 Filed 07/25/23 PageID.1403 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, SOUTHERN DIVISION KENT TERRY PRISBREY, an individual, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff, v. Case No. 4:21-cv-124 STATE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES, MILBANK INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES A-Z, District Judge David Nuffer Chief Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead Defendants. Plaintiff who is proceeding pro se move the court to seal the case. (ECF No. 93.) This is allegedly necessary because the parties are having a “communication problem” that cannot be disclosed to the public. Mtn. p. 1. The court will deny the motion. As set forth in the Local Rules, “The records of the court are presumptively open to the public,” and sealing court documents is “highly discouraged.” DUCivR 5-3(a)(1). The right of access to judicial records, however, is not absolute. Colony Ins. Co. v. Burke, 698 F.3d 1222, 1241 (10th Cir. 2012). “[T]he presumption in favor of access to judicial records may be overcome where countervailing interests heavily outweigh the public interests in access.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “The burden is on the party seeking to restrict access to show some significant interest that outweighs the presumption.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff points to communication issues as a basis to seal this case. Plaintiff also argues there is use of a “SS trust”, that he has turned the alleged violations of service in this case to the FTC, and “defendants Michael E. Larraco used a fictious name.” In addition, Dockets.Justia.com Case 4:21-cv-00124-DN-DBP Document 110 Filed 07/25/23 PageID.1404 Page 2 of 2 Plaintiff makes references to alleged violations of the “RICCO act / laws” and attaches his land patent to the motion. None of Plaintiff’s arguments support the sealing of this case. Plaintiff cites to no authority and the court has already rejected Plaintiff’s unsubstantiated arguments regarding service issues. The court finds Plaintiff fails to meet his burden to seal this case and therefore the motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 21 July 2023. Dustin B. Pead United States Magistrate Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
