BLACKMON v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
3:20-cv-07507-RK
| D.N.J. | Jul 19, 2021Background
- Petitioner Craig Blackmon, a state prisoner, filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the District of New Jersey.
- Respondents moved to seal Exhibit B to their answer, which contains Petitioner’s pre-sentence investigation report, mental health evaluations, a “Confidential Reports Considered” document, and a “Confidential Addendum to Amended Three-Member Panel Narrative Notice of Decision.”
- Petitioner did not oppose the Motion to Seal.
- The court noted the strong presumption of public access to judicial records but that this presumption is rebuttable; the movant bears the burden under In re Cendant and Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(3) to justify sealing.
- The court found established privacy interests in pre-sentence reports and mental-health records under cited federal and New Jersey authority and regulations, and concluded disclosure would irreparably violate Petitioner’s privacy.
- There was no less restrictive alternative, no prior sealing order, and no known objection; the court granted the Motion and directed the Clerk to keep Exhibit B under seal and to mail the Order to Petitioner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exhibit B should be sealed | Blackmon filed no opposition | Exhibit B contains confidential PSI and mental-health records; sealing necessary to protect privacy; no less restrictive alternative | Granted: Exhibit B sealed and to be maintained under seal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Zimmermann, [citation="739 F. App'x 101"] (3d Cir. 2018) (recognizing strong presumption of public access to judicial records)
- In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2001) (presumption of access is rebuttable; movant bears burden to justify sealing)
- United States v. Cianscewski, 894 F.2d 74 (3d Cir. 1990) (presentence reports considered confidential)
- United States v. Preate, 927 F. Supp. 163 (M.D. Pa. 1996) (reasons supporting confidentiality of presentence reports)
- State v. DeGeorge, 274 A.2d 593 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1971) (presentence reports should not be public record)