Joseph E. Glaum v. Colby Braun and Joseph Joyce

D. North Dakota

Joseph E. Glaum v. Colby Braun and Joseph Joyce

DecidedOctober 30, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-00146

StatusUnknown

This text of Joseph E. Glaum v. Colby Braun and Joseph Joyce (Joseph E. Glaum v. Colby Braun and Joseph Joyce) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. North Dakota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Joseph E. Glaum v. Colby Braun and Joseph Joyce, (D.N.D. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA Joseph E. Glaum, ) ) ORDER Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Colby Braun and Joseph Joyce, ) ) Case No. 1:24-cv-146 Defendants. ) On October 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. (Doc. No. 89). Therein he requests leave to file an affidavit from another inmate at the North Dakota State Penitentiary (“NDSP”) under seal. Noting that the affiiant initiated his own case in federal court involving issues similar to those in the instant case, Plaintiff asserts that it is imperative this affidavit be filed under seal in order to (1) protect the affiant, (2) protect himself and other inmates vulnerable to retaliation at the NDSP, and (3) avoid possible bias or other negative impacts on his future appeals. He further asserts that sealing this affidavit “does not substantially interfere with what the public has access to” and that “it would be more beneficial than not to allowing sealing this one document.” (Id.). It is well-established that the public has a common-law right of access to judicial records. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). This right of access is not absolute, but requires a weighing of competing interests. The decision to file a document under seal is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court. See Webster Groves Sch. Dist. v. Pulitzer Publ’g Co., 898 F.2d 1371, 1376 (8th Cir. 1990). A party seeking to seal a judicial record must demonstrate a compelling interest which overrides the qualified First Amendment right of public 1 access enjoyed by the public and press. United States v. McDougal, 103 F.3d 651, 658 (8th Cir. 1996). A court deciding to seal a document must explain why sealing was necessary and why less restrictive alternatives were not appropriate. See In re Search Warrant for Secretarial Area Outside Office of Gunn, 855 F.2d 569, 574 (8th Cir. 1988); In re Sealed Documents, Standing Order (D.N.D.

Sept. 30, 2011). Plaintiff’s request to seal the affiant’s affidavit is nonsensical. First, Plaintiff appears to be laboring under the misapprehension that the affidavit will be shielded from Defendants view if filed under seal. While sealed documents are inaccessible to the general public, they can be accessed by the parties. Second, there is nothing confidential in affiant’s affidavit that requires it to be filed under seal. As Plaintiff acknowledges, the affiant filed his own federal case. See Davis v. Braun, Case No. 1:25-cv-137 (D.N.D.) at Doc. No. 9. In the present affidavit, the affiant discusses the alleged conduct forming the bases for his claims in his own federal case. See id. Thus, the substance of the present affidavit is already publicly available in the affiant’s filings in his own case.

For the reasons discussed above and in the exercise of its discretion, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Doc. No. 89). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 30th day of October, 2025. /s/ Clare R. Hochhalter Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge United States District Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA Joseph E. Glaum, ) ) ORDER Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Colby Braun and Joseph Joyce, ) ) Case No. 1:24-cv-146 Defendants. ) On October 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. (Doc. No. 89). Therein he requests leave to file an affidavit from another inmate at the North Dakota State Penitentiary (“NDSP”) under seal. Noting that the affiiant initiated his own case in federal court involving issues similar to those in the instant case, Plaintiff asserts that it is imperative this affidavit be filed under seal in order to (1) protect the affiant, (2) protect himself and other inmates vulnerable to retaliation at the NDSP, and (3) avoid possible bias or other negative impacts on his future appeals. He further asserts that sealing this affidavit “does not substantially interfere with what the public has access to” and that “it would be more beneficial than not to allowing sealing this one document.” (Id.). It is well-established that the public has a common-law right of access to judicial records. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). This right of access is not absolute, but requires a weighing of competing interests. The decision to file a document under seal is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court. See Webster Groves Sch. Dist. v. Pulitzer Publ’g Co., 898 F.2d 1371, 1376 (8th Cir. 1990). A party seeking to seal a judicial record must demonstrate a compelling interest which overrides the qualified First Amendment right of public 1 access enjoyed by the public and press. United States v. McDougal, 103 F.3d 651, 658 (8th Cir. 1996). A court deciding to seal a document must explain why sealing was necessary and why less restrictive alternatives were not appropriate. See In re Search Warrant for Secretarial Area Outside Office of Gunn, 855 F.2d 569, 574 (8th Cir. 1988); In re Sealed Documents, Standing Order (D.N.D.

Sept. 30, 2011). Plaintiff’s request to seal the affiant’s affidavit is nonsensical. First, Plaintiff appears to be laboring under the misapprehension that the affidavit will be shielded from Defendants view if filed under seal. While sealed documents are inaccessible to the general public, they can be accessed by the parties. Second, there is nothing confidential in affiant’s affidavit that requires it to be filed under seal. As Plaintiff acknowledges, the affiant filed his own federal case. See Davis v. Braun, Case No. 1:25-cv-137 (D.N.D.) at Doc. No. 9. In the present affidavit, the affiant discusses the alleged conduct forming the bases for his claims in his own federal case. See id. Thus, the substance of the present affidavit is already publicly available in the affiant’s filings in his own case.

For the reasons discussed above and in the exercise of its discretion, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Doc. No. 89). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 30th day of October, 2025. /s/ Clare R. Hochhalter Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge United States District Court

United States v. James B. McDougal Jim Guy Tucker Susan H. McDougal Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Radio-Television News Directors Association Capitol Cities/american Broadcasting Companies Cable News Network, Inc. National Broadcasting Company, Inc. Cbs, Inc. Movants-Appellants v. Dow Jones and Company, Inc. Movant, William Jefferson Clinton, the President of the United States in His Official Capacity, Interested Party-Appellee. United States of America v. James B. McDougal Jim Guy Tucker Susan H. McDougal Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Radio-Television News Directors Association Capitol Cities/american Broadcasting Companies Cable News Network, Inc. National Broadcasting Company, Inc. Cbs, Inc. Movants v. Dow Jones and Company, Inc. Movant, William Jefferson Clinton, the President of the United States in His Official Capacity, Interested Party-Appellee. Citizens United, Interested Party-Appellant

103 F.3d 651 (Eighth Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Joseph E. Glaum v. Colby Braun and Joseph Joyce, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-e-glaum-v-colby-braun-and-joseph-joyce-ndd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack