Upshaw v. United States
754 F. Supp. 2d 24
D.D.C.2010Background
- Upshaw originally filed a state-law tort claim in DC Superior Court; the United States was substituted as the defendant and the case was removed to this Court under the FTCA.
- The United States moved to dismiss; on November 16, 2009 the Court granted the motion and dismissed the action in its entirety.
- A twenty-one page Memorandum Opinion accompanied the dismissal explaining the basis for the Court's decision.
- Nearly a year later, on August 17, 2010, Upshaw filed a Consent Motion to Reopen & Seal, seeking to seal the entire action and remove the Memorandum Opinion from the Court’s website.
- The Court construes the motion as a request to seal the public docket; the United States consented as part of a settlement agreement, but the Court denied the motion.
- The Court denied the motion because the Hubbard factors favor public access to judicial records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case should be sealed despite public access presumptions. | Upshaw argues the documents contain sensitive information and stigma harms employment. | United States asserts strong public policy in favor of openness and presumes access. | Denied; Hubbard factors weigh against sealing. |
| Whether there is a need for public access to the documents at issue. | Upshaw contends public access is unnecessary given private nature of dispute. | United States contends public access is essential regardless of private disputes. | Denied; need for public access weighs heavily against sealing. |
| Whether there has been previous public access to the documents. | Upshaw contends documents were not publicly shared. | Public docket history and publication in a case reporter show long-standing access. | Denied; prior public access weighs heavily against sealing. |
| Whether privacy interests or potential prejudice justify sealing. | Upshaw claims substantial privacy interests and potential employment prejudice. | Interests asserted are weak and not properly supported by evidence; disclosure does not prejudice. | Denied; privacy/prejudice factors do not outweigh public access. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293 (D.C.Cir. 1980) (six factors for sealing decisions and strong presumption of public access)
- Nat'l Children's Ctr. Inc. v. NCAA, 98 F.3d 1406 (D.C.Cir. 1996) (public access presumption in judicial records)
- Johnson v. Greater Southeast Cmty. Hosp. Corp., 951 F.2d 1268 (D.C.Cir. 1991) (public access principles in the circuit)
- Zapp v. Zhenli Ye Gon, 746 F. Supp. 2d 145 (D.D.C. 2010) (outlining standard governing motions to seal)
- Upshaw v. United States, 669 F. Supp. 2d 32 (D.D.C. 2009) (relevance of prior memorandum to public proceedings)