HALEY H. NEEMAN v. WESTOVER COMPANIES, and WRV APARTMENT ASSOCIATES, L.P., d/b/a WILLOW RIDGE VILLAGE APARTMENTS
DOCKET NO. A-1660-22
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION
July 19, 2024
Argued October 25, 2023
Before Judges Gummer and Walcott-Henderson.
This opinion shall not “constitute precedent or be binding upon any court.” Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Burlington County, Docket No. L-1319-19.
Michael Confusione argued the cause for appellant (Hegge & Confusione, LLC, attorneys; Michael Confusione, of counsel and on the briefs).
Caitlin F. Andreotta argued the cause for respondents (Devlin Associates, PC, attorneys; Caitlin F. Andreotta, on the brief).
Plaintiff Haley Neeman appeals from a January 20, 2023 order denying reconsideration1 of her motion to seal all records related to her then-settled personal-injury lawsuit against defendants Westover Companies and WRV Apartment Association LP based on her claims the records contained her confidential personal identifiers and placed her at risk of harm because they are publicly accessible on eCourts. Defendants take no position on the merits of the substantive issues before us on appeal.2 Having considered plaintiff‘s arguments, the record, and applicable law, we affirm.
We glean the following facts from the limited record submitted by plaintiff in support of her appeal, the transcript of the argument on the motion to seal, and the trial court‘s oral decision. Plaintiff had sued defendants, claiming she suffered personal injuries resulting from exposure to mold and
In the protective order, entered on February 15, 2022, the parties agreed that plaintiff‘s confidential personal identifiers “including current and former addresses, phone numbers, social security number, date of birth, driver‘s license numbers, medical records numbers, patient account numbers, and insurance identification number . . . shall be redacted from otherwise public filings on the eCourts system.” The parties further agreed they would “file any medical records, disability records, social security records and/or education record[s]
After plaintiff settled her personal-injury lawsuit with defendants and the court dismissed her complaint in an order entered on March 31, 2022, plaintiff filed a pro se second motion to seal the record, titled “Motion to Seal (w/New Evidence),” along with a certification in support of her motion. In her certification, plaintiff asserted that “[t]his motion is about very serious safety issues, and very significant dangerous damages, all directly causally related to this case and filings.” According to plaintiff, “public filings” from the underlying personal-injury action “included all of [her] confidential, sensitive, private . . . and HIPAA protected information.”4 And, plaintiff further claimed that “[a]s a result of the publication of [her] medical, personal, [identifiers], and confidential information, [she] received threatening and harassing phone calls from unknown individuals, cyber criminals, and some likely [from harmful] people in [her] past.”
Plaintiff claimed to have been physically assaulted as a result of the publicly available information and also alleged medical identity theft. She
At oral argument on plaintiff‘s pro se motion to seal the record, the court noted that it had considered the same request in plaintiff‘s previous motion and had denied it. The court asked plaintiff a series of questions to ascertain what, if any records, had been improperly filed in contravention of the February 15, 2022 protective order, stating, “what I really need to know is—if I‘m going to remove something from the record, I need to know what it is I‘m removing from the record” and asking plaintiff to identify “specific items in the court file that you think warrant being removed from the file.” On more than one occasion, plaintiff asserted that she did not have all of the files—the records she maintains were publicly available—but, referring to eCourts stated, “[i]t‘s throughout all of the filings. It has all of that information, all of my medical information.”
The court also reviewed additional documents in the court record and specifically noted that plaintiff‘s amended complaint did not contain any confidential personal identifiers, finding5:
It has your name. It has that you lived at the Willow Ridge 1 Village Apartments, which it needs to have in order to bring the claim that you brought here, the dates that you occupied that property.... It does not go into any information about, you know, who your medical providers were. It does not list a social security number. It speaks on very general terms about the medical consequences here and I have to tell you, based on my review of this record, this is the most detailed document that we have in the record that I‘m aware of.
After reviewing the documents, the court noted it had “previously scrutinized the issue” when it denied plaintiff‘s initial motion to seal. The court also noted it had “recognized back on January 7[] that there could be a protective order to protect [plaintiff‘s] concerns moving forward[.]” Because this was plaintiff‘s second motion to seal records, the court determined the motion constituted a motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, referring to its prior order denying plaintiff‘s first motion to seal, the court concluded it “cannot find that it previously expressed its decision on either a palpably incorrect or irrational basis or that it was obvious that the [c]ourt failed to consider or failed to appreciate probative competent evidence.”
The court concluded it could not “find that there is anything further that would need to be removed from this record or that there is any basis or good cause for sealing the record as a whole given the presumption of public access.” Framing plaintiff‘s application as a motion for reconsideration, the court stated it was:
satisfied that even with the discussions on the motion to enforce settlement, any settlement discussions, most of which were done off of the record, at no time was there any private information of [plaintiff] included. There was not any social security number, any birth date, any medical information that was contained therein. So even if someone were to come to the court and ask to obtain a transcript at their own expense of the motion hearings or anything surrounding the settlement that went on the record, there is nothing
contained in those proceedings that is in any way confidential or has a private identifier in there that would be at issue. So for all of the foregoing reasons, I find that it‘s appropriate to deny what is really a motion for reconsideration of the motion to seal or to otherwise—I find it otherwise inappropriate to grant the motion to seal given, as I‘ve said, the presumption of public access and the fact that there is not good cause.
This appeal followed. On appeal, plaintiff argues the court abused its discretion by denying her motion to seal the record on eCourts because she had demonstrated that “disclosure has and will likely continue to cause a clearly defined and serious injury to [her].” Plaintiff maintains that her “interest in privacy, and avoiding the continuing harms she has been suffering because of the public disclosure, substantially outweighs the presumption of public access[.]” More particularly, plaintiff also asserts her “personal, private information all remain accessible” on eCourts, including:
HIPAA protected medical information referencing symptoms, conditions, and treatments, confidential Social Security disability information, health insurance information, education information (including names, addresses, dates and how long at each school), prior addresses of residence, and many other [identifiers] for anyone to obtain and steal plaintiff‘s identity or harass or harm her.
We begin by acknowledging the presumption of public access to documents and materials filed in a civil action. Hammock by Hammock v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, 142 N.J. 356, 380 (1995). The presumption may be rebutted by showing “[d]isclosure will likely cause a clearly defined and serious injury to any person” and “[t]he person‘s . . . interest in privacy substantially outweighs” the need for access.
- Disclosure will likely cause a clearly defined and serious injury to any person or entity; and
- The person‘s or entity‘s interest in privacy substantially outweighs the presumption that all court and administrative records are open for public inspection pursuant to [Rule] 1:38.
In addition, “[t]he party attempting to show that ‘secrecy outweighs the presumption’ of discoverability must be ‘specific[] as to each document[.]‘” Capital Health Sys. v. Horizon Healthcare Servs., 230 N.J. 73, 80 (2017) (alteration in original) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Hammock, 142 N.J. at 381-82). And, the judge “must examine each document individually and make factual findings with regard to why the presumption of public access has been overcome.” Hammock, 142 N.J. at 382.
We review the court‘s denial of plaintiff‘s post-settlement motion for reconsideration—as the court properly determined plaintiff‘s second motion to seal constituted a motion for reconsideration under
A court may “in the interest of justice” consider new evidence on a motion for reconsideration only when the evidence was not available prior to the decision by the court on the order that is the subject of the reconsideration motion. D‘Atria v. D‘Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 401 (Ch. Div. 1990); see also Palombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. 274, 289 (App. Div. 2010) (finding that facts known to party prior to entry of an original order did not provide an appropriate basis for reconsideration); Fusco, 349 N.J. Super. at 462 (finding a party is not entitled to reconsideration where evidence was available but not submitted to the court on the motion for the original order).
Plaintiff does not challenge the court‘s determination that her second motion to seal records should properly be considered
Measured against these legal principles, we cannot find the court abused its discretion by denying plaintiff‘s motion on an irrational basis, made its
In reaching this decision, we are persuaded that the court demonstrated great care in its consideration of plaintiff‘s claim she was at risk of harm because documents containing confidential personal identifiers were publicly available on eCourts—as plaintiff argued she had already suffered physical and psychological injury as a result of the public availability of this information. The court afforded plaintiff every opportunity to support her contentions by identifying specific records of concern. In spite of the court‘s efforts, however, plaintiff was unable to identify any such records with her personal and confidential identifiers, other than the fact that her prior address was listed on her personal injury complaint and appeared at times in the record.
Addressing the fact that her prior address appeared at times in the record, the court determined the inclusion of plaintiff‘s prior address was “a necessary part of the record” because plaintiff had made claims with regard to the condition of that property and it had previously found that the presumption of public access outweighed any issues with the record and weighed against sealing the record as a whole. We agree and conclude there is no abuse of discretion in the
With respect to the other records plaintiff specifically presented to the court, including excerpts from her deposition testimony and answers to interrogatories, the court found those records had been appropriately redacted to remove her social security number and date of birth, and thus, they did not provide support for her request. The record provides no basis to reject the court‘s finding.
On appeal, plaintiff offers eight examples of records she claims are available on eCourts that contain her confidential personal identifiers: a “Certification of Counsel in Response and Opposition to Quash Subpoenas,” filed on March 25, 2021; a Reply Brief, filed on October 14, 2021; the “Consent Order to Replace Documents,” filed on May 24, 2021; the “Notice of Motion to Quash Subpoenas,” filed on March 16, 2021; a “Notice of Motion to Compel Discovery,” filed on August 10, 2021; the “Memorandum of Defendants,” filed on May 12, 2020; a “Reply Brief,” filed on March 29, 2021; and the “public hearing transcripts of the Settlement Conference” from January 2022 and the “Motion to Enforce Settlement” from July 2022. We note, however, that none of these records are included in the record before us; thus, we cannot properly
Plaintiff further argues there are multiple references to her confidential personal identifiers embedded within the court‘s recording of her “Settlement Conference” and “Motion to Enforce Settlement.” Plaintiff includes a single page in her confidential appendix, that refers to a transcript of the settlement hearing, but she does not provide a stenographic transcript of the proceeding. Absent either transcript—to the settlement conference and motion to enforce settlement—and lacking any proofs in support of her claims, we cannot discern whether any personal identifiers remain in any publicly available court transcripts and recordings as claimed. See
To the extent we have not expressly addressed any arguments presented by plaintiff, we have determined they are not of sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.
Affirmed.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION