Mathew-Allen McCaster v. United States of America, et al.
This text of Mathew-Allen McCaster v. United States of America, et al. (Mathew-Allen McCaster v. United States of America, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATHEW-ALLEN MCCASTER, Case No. 1:25-cv-00550-KES-CDB
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL 13 v. 14 (Doc. 11) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Background 18 Plaintiff Mathew-Allen McCaster (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 19 initiated this action with the filing of a complaint against Defendant United States of America 20 (“Defendant”) and others not specifically named in the caption on March 13, 2025, in the District 21 Court of the District of Columbia. (Doc. 1). The action was transferred to this Court on May 9, 22 2025. (Docs. 6, 7). 23 On September 22, 2025, the Court adopted the findings and recommendations of the 24 undersigned (see Doc. 8), denied Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order, and dismissed 25 Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend certain claims. (Doc. 10). Plaintiff was ordered to file 26 within 21 days from the date of service of the order (i.e., by October 16, 2025) either (1) a first 27 amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the findings and recommendations, or (2) 1 a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) if he no 2 longer wishes to pursue this action. Id. at 3. 3 Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Entire Case File 4 A. Plaintiff’s Motion 5 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to seal, filed on October 27, 2025. (Doc. 11). 6 Plaintiff seeks the Court seal the entire case file, including all previously filed materials 7 “referencing or containing” purportedly confidential “tribal-governance records” which he 8 contends “were intended to remain sealed under tribal law and were provided solely for 9 jurisdictional notice, not public dissemination.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff asserts the tribal documents filed 10 in this litigation are protected by a tribal protective order “designating them confidential judicial 11 records under the authority of the Mathias El Tribe Supreme Court.” Id. Plaintiff asserts good 12 cause exists under Local Rule 141(a) to seal the entire case, or alternatively, to restrict all entries 13 containing tribal-court materials. Id. 14 B. Governing Authority 15 Under the First Amendment, the press and the public have a presumed right of access to 16 court proceedings and documents. See generally Press-Enterprise Co. v. Super. Ct., 464 U.S. 501, 17 510 (1985); Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016); cf. 18 Olympic Ref. Co. v. Carter, 332 F.2d 260, 264 (9th Cir. 1964) (“In the federal judicial system trial 19 and pretrial proceedings are ordinarily to be conducted in public.”). As a general rule, the public 20 is permitted ‘access to litigation documents and information produced during discovery.’” In re 21 Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting 22 Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F. 3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002) and citing San Jose Mercury 23 News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999)). “Unless a particular court record 24 is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 25 Kamakana v. Cty. & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State 26 Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). 27 Where a party seeks to bar the public from accessing a litigation document in connection 1 interest; (2) there is a substantial probability that, in the absence of closure, this compelling interest 2 would be harmed; and (3) there are no alternatives to closure that would adequately protect the 3 compelling interest. Oregonian Publ’g Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 920 F.2d 1462, 1466 (9th Cir. 1990) 4 (citing Press Enterprise, 464 U.S. at 510); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. The party seeking to seal 5 a judicial record bears the burden of meeting the “compelling reasons” standard. Kamakana, 447 6 F.3d at 1178. 7 Where the documents that the applicant seeks to seal relate to a non-dispositive motion, the 8 applicant must satisfy a “good cause” standard by making a “particularized showing” that “specific 9 prejudice or harm” will result should the information be disclosed. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1131. Broad 10 and unsupported allegations in support of a request to seal fall short of this standard. Beckman 11 Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir.1992). 12 C. Discussion 13 The Court has considered the reasons advanced by Plaintiff in his motion to seal the entire 14 case in light of the factors set forth in Oregonian Publ’g Co. and concludes those reasons do not 15 compellingly outweigh the strong presumption in favor of access to public records. 16 First, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s asserted grounds for sealing—that the tribal documents 17 filed in this case are protected by a purported protective order of the “Mathias El Tribe Supreme 18 Court” such that public access would contravene confidentiality obligations and “would violate the 19 Tribe’s sovereign control over its records” (Doc. 11 at 1)—fails to establish good cause as the 20 request to seal was made over ten months after this case was first filed, and over five months from 21 the time this case was transferred to this Court. Although Plaintiff represents that certain documents 22 were “intended” to be sealed from the public and proffered only on the limited question of 23 jurisdiction, Plaintiff never before now made such a supposed intention known to the Court. 24 Plaintiff’s lack of diligence in seeking confidentiality protections undermines his claim of “specific 25 prejudice or harm” that will result should this case remain open. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1131. 26 Second, Plaintiff’s request fails to inform the Court how sealing of the entire case file or of 27 only the filings containing tribal court materials is warranted. Plaintiff cites no authority in support 1 | under the authority of a tribal sovereign. Importantly, Plaintiff does not identify any specific, 2 | purportedly confidential “tribal-governance records” warranting sealing. 3 Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion will be denied. See Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 4 | 1027 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Here, the parties seek to seal the entire record of the proceedings in the 5 | district court, including the court’s opinion. The district court properly invoked the ‘compelling 6 || reasons’ standard in considering the sealing request. ... [Defendant] has not pointed to any 7 | compelling reasons that overcome the strong presumption in favor of maintaining public access to 8 | court records.”); id. at 1026 (citing Miller v. Ind. Hosp., 16 F.3d 549, 551 (3d Cir. 1994) (“This 9 | Court has made it clear that our strong presumption of openness does not permit the routine closing 10 | of judicial records to the public. The party seeking to seal any part of a judicial record bears the 11 || heavy burden of showing that the material is the kind of information that courts will protect and 12 | that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Mathew-Allen McCaster v. United States of America, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mathew-allen-mccaster-v-united-states-of-america-et-al-caed-2025.