Mathew-Allen McCaster v. United States of America, et al.
Opinion
MATHEW-ALLEN MCCASTER, Case No. 1:25-cv-00550-KES-CDB
Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL v. (Doc. 11) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. Background Plaintiff Mathew-Allen McCaster (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this action with the filing of a complaint against Defendant United States of America (“Defendant”) and others not specifically named in the caption on March 13, 2025, in the District Court of the District of Columbia. (Doc. 1). The action was transferred to this Court on May 9, 2025. (Docs. 6, 7). On September 22, 2025, the Court adopted the findings and recommendations of the undersigned (see Doc. 8), denied Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order, and dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend certain claims. (Doc. 10). Plaintiff was ordered to file within 21 days from the date of service of the order (i.e., by October 16, 2025) either (1) a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the findings and recommendations, or (2) a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) if he no longer wishes to pursue this action. Id. at 3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Entire Case File A. Plaintiff’s Motion Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to seal, filed on October 27, 2025. (Doc. 11). Plaintiff seeks the Court seal the entire case file, including all previously filed materials “referencing or containing” purportedly confidential “tribal-governance records” which he contends “were intended to remain sealed under tribal law and were provided solely for jurisdictional notice, not public dissemination.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff asserts the tribal documents filed in this litigation are protected by a tribal protective order “designating them confidential judicial records under the authority of the Mathias El Tribe Supreme Court.” Id. Plaintiff asserts good cause exists under Local Rule 141(a) to seal the entire case, or alternatively, to restrict all entries containing tribal-court materials. Id. B. Governing Authority Under the First Amendment, the press and the public have a presumed right of access to court proceedings and documents. See generally Press-Enterprise Co. v. Super. Ct., 464 U.S. 501, 510 (1985); Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016); cf. Olympic Ref. Co. v. Carter, 332 F.2d 260, 264 (9th Cir. 1964) (“In the federal judicial system trial and pretrial proceedings are ordinarily to be conducted in public.”). As a general rule, the public is permitted ‘access to litigation documents and information produced during discovery.’” In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F. 3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002) and citing San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999)). “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. Cty. & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Where a party seeks to bar the public from accessing a litigation document in connection interest; (2) there is a substantial probability that, in the absence of closure, this compelling interest would be harmed; and (3) there are no alternatives to closure that would adequately protect the compelling interest. Oregonian Publ’g Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 920 F.2d 1462, 1466 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Press Enterprise, 464 U.S. at 510); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. The party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of meeting the “compelling reasons” standard. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. Where the documents that the applicant seeks to seal relate to a non-dispositive motion, the applicant must satisfy a “good cause” standard by making a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm” will result should the information be disclosed. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1131. Broad and unsupported allegations in support of a request to seal fall short of this standard. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir.1992). C. Discussion The Court has considered the reasons advanced by Plaintiff in his motion to seal the entire case in light of the factors set forth in Oregonian Publ’g Co. and concludes those reasons do not compellingly outweigh the strong presumption in favor of access to public records. First, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s asserted grounds for sealing—that the tribal documents filed in this case are protected by a purported protective order of the “Mathias El Tribe Supreme Court” such that public access would contravene confidentiality obligations and “would violate the Tribe’s sovereign control over its records” (Doc. 11 at 1)—fails to establish good cause as the request to seal was made over ten months after this case was first filed, and over five months from the time this case was transferred to this Court. Although Plaintiff represents that certain documents were “intended” to be sealed from the public and proffered only on the limited question of jurisdiction, Plaintiff never before now made such a supposed intention known to the Court. Plaintiff’s lack of diligence in seeking confidentiality protections undermines his claim of “specific prejudice or harm” that will result should this case remain open. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1131. Second, Plaintiff’s request fails to inform the Court how sealing of the entire case file or of only the filings containing tribal court materials is warranted. Plaintiff cites no authority in support under the authority of a tribal sovereign. Importantly, Plaintiff does not identify any specific, purportedly confidential “tribal-governance records” warranting sealing. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion will be denied. See Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1027 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Here, the parties seek to seal the entire record of the proceedings in the district court, including the court’s opinion. The district court properly invoked the ‘compelling reasons’ standard in considering the sealing request. ... [Defendant] has not pointed to any compelling reasons that overcome the strong presumption in favor of maintaining public access to court records.”); id. at 1026 (citing Miller v. Ind. Hosp., 16 F.3d 549, 551 (3d Cir. 1994) (“This Court has made it clear that our strong presumption of openness does not permit the routine closing of judicial records to the public. The party seeking to seal any part of a judicial record bears the heavy burden of showing that the material is the kind of information that courts will protect and that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure. A party who seeks to seal an entire record faces an even heavier burden.”)); e.g., Ellis-Sanders v. Guardian Piazza D’Oro LLC, No. 25-cv-1379-JO-DDL, 2025 WL 1637043, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2025) (denying party’s request to seal entire case file for failure to identify particularized harm); Low v. Bartolotti, No. 18-00283 JMS-KJM, 2021 WL 2637318, at *2-3 (D. Haw. Jun
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mathew-Allen McCaster v. United States of America, et al. (Mathew-Allen McCaster v. United States of America, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.