PRELLE v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF NEW JERSEY, STATE OF
3:16-cv-05447
| D.N.J. | Feb 3, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Arthur Scott Prelle, proceeding pro se, filed a Motion to Seal the entire case on July 15, 2020, asserting generalized national security concerns.
- No defendant opposed or responded to the Motion.
- Magistrate Judge Goodman previously denied multiple similar sealing requests and denied this request in an earlier July 7, 2020 order, finding no specific harm alleged.
- Plaintiff appealed the magistrate judge’s non-dispositive decision to the district court; the district court reviewed under the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard.
- The district court found Plaintiff’s submission conclusory, lacking specific factual or legal allegations showing the heavy burden required to seal judicial records, and denied the Motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case should be sealed to protect national security | Prelle contends public access threatens national security and seeks full sealing | No opposition filed; magistrate found no specific protected information identified | Denied — plaintiff failed to meet heavy burden to justify sealing entire record |
| Whether magistrate judges denial was clearly erroneous or contrary to law | Argues magistrates order should be reversed (appeal of non-dispositive matter) | Magistrate applied correct legal standard and found no specific harm shown | Denied — district court found no clear error or misapplication of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Indiana Hosp., 16 F.3d 549 (3d Cir. 1994) (party seeking sealing bears heavy burden; sealing entire record is especially onerous)
- Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059 (3d Cir. 1984) (standards for protecting judicial records)
- United States v. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948) (definition of "clearly erroneous")
- Lithuanian Commerce Corp. v. Sara Lee Hosiery, 177 F.R.D. 205 (D.N.J. 1997) (deference to magistrate who managed the case)
- Dome Petroleum Ltd. v. Emp'rs Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 131 F.R.D. 63 (D.N.J. 1990) (clarifies clearly erroneous standard)
- Doe v. Hartford Life Acc. Ins. Co., 237 F.R.D. 545 (D.N.J. 2006) (contrary-to-law review when magistrate misapplies law)