Yaman Ex Rel. Ky v. United States Department of State
786 F. Supp. 2d 148
D.D.C.2011Background
- Yaman v. Dep't of State involves APA review of the State Department's passport decision for two dual U.S.-Turkish citizen daughters; plaintiffs are Linda Yaman and the two minors, residing in the United States.
- State Department granted EY and KY limited, one-way travel passports rather than unrestricted passports; the girls were formerly in Turkey under custody proceedings.
- Plaintiff sought access to the written findings and recommendation of the hearing officer in the administrative passport proceedings; related Hague/ICARA matters are ongoing.
- Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address; defendants moved to compel disclosure of her full residence address under Local Civil Rules 5.1(e)(1) and 11.1, citing Hague Convention coordination.
- Plaintiff moved to file her address and portions of the motion under seal and ex parte to protect the safety of the minor daughters; the court granted the sealing request.
- Court’s decision does not resolve custody or Hague matters; it addresses the propriety of sealing the plaintiff's address in this litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff's address may be sealed and filed ex parte. | Plaintiff seeks protection of minor daughters' safety; address should be confidential. | State Department needs address to assist Hague/ICARA processes and service; disclosure aids ongoing matters. | Yes; address and supporting material may be filed under seal and ex parte. |
| What framework governs the sealing/anonymity decision in this context. | Anonymity/privacy framework applicable to protect child plaintiffs should govern. | Hubbard sealing factors should apply to determine public access. | Anonymity/privacy framework applies, with Hubbard factors guiding sealing decision. |
| Do the factors favor granting sealing given government's interests and minor plaintiffs' safety? | Privacy for minor children outweighs public access. | State Department would be prejudiced by not having address for Hague/ICARA proceedings. | All six considerations favor confidentiality of the address. |
| Is the State Department prejudiced by withholding the address in this litigation? | No prejudice; case concerns passport decision not custody/ICARA petitions. | Knowing the address could aid in Hague/ICARA proceedings. | No prejudice to State Department; sealing is appropriate for this dispute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubbard v. United States, 650 F.2d 293 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (factors for sealing orders in sensitive documents)
- Johnson v. Greater Southeast Cmty. Hosp. Corp., 951 F.2d 1268 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (privacy/identity considerations; balancing interests)
- National Ass'n of Waterfront Employers v. Chao, 587 F. Supp. 2d 90 (D. Del. 2008) (anonymity/privacy factors for plaintiff proceedings)
- Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180 (5th Cir. 1981) (proceeding anonymously when justified by privacy of minors)
- Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558 (6th Cir. 2004) (enhanced privacy protections for child plaintiffs)