Rodionova v. Qatar Airways Group (Q.C.S.C.)

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IANA RODIONOVA, Case No. 25-cv-05838-TSH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 6 10 QATAR AIRWAYS GROUP (Q.C.S.C.), et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff Iana Rodionova has filed a “Motion to Seal Application IFP,” which, given her 14 pro se status, the Court construes as a request to seal her in forma pauperis application (ECF No. 15 3) pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5.1 ECF No. 6. 16 “The public has a right of access to the Court’s files.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). Litigants must 17 “minimize the number of documents filed under seal” and “avoid wherever possible sealing entire 18 documents (as opposed to merely redacting the truly sensitive information in a document).” Id. 19 The party requesting sealing must provide “a specific statement of the applicable legal standard 20

21 1 Plaintiff and her husband, Sergey Firsov, have filed at least 22 cases in this District over the last four months. See Firsov v. Alaska Airlines, 5:25-cv-02841; Rodionova v. Qatar Airways Group 22 (Q,C.S.C.), 5:25-cv-02871; Firsov v. Frontier Airlines, Inc., 5:25-cv-02898; Rodionova et al v. Western Union Financial Services, Inc., 3:25-cv-03054; Firsov v. Skyscanner, Inc et al., 4:25-cv- 23 03198; Firsov, minor, by & through parent Sergey Firsov v. Church of Scientology of Silicon Valley et al., 5:25-cv-03265; Firsov v. JetBlue Airways Corporation, 3:25-cv-03387; Firsov v. 24 Austrian Airlines AG, 5:25-cv-03504; Firsov v. Turkish Airlines, Inc., 3:25-cv-03689; Firsov v. Scandinavian Airlines of North America, Inc., 4:25-cv-03691; Firsov v. United Airlines, Inc et al., 25 5:25-cv-03784; Firsov v. United Airlines, Inc. et al., 4:25-cv-03903; Rodionova v. Turkish Airlines, Inc. et al., 3:25-cv-03912; Firsov et al v. Air Canada, Inc., 3:25-cv-04058; Firsov et al v. 26 Moneygram Payment Systems, Inc., 5:25-cv-04726; Firsov et al v. Western Union Financial Services, Inc., 5:25-cv-04727; Firsov et al v. Dandelion Payments, Inc., 5:25-cv-04765; Firsov v. 27 JetBlue Airways Corporation, 3:25-cv-05240; Firsov et al v. Qatar Airways Group (Q,C.S.C.), 1 and the reasons for keeping a document under seal.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). This must include an 2 || explanation of “(i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (11) the injury that 3 will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not 4 || sufficient.” Id. 5 Here, none of the information in Plaintiffs application requires redaction, and financial 6 affidavits in support of applications to proceed in forma pauperis generally are not filed under seal. 7 || See Cooney v. California, 2013 WL 1748053, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2013) (“Plaintiffs IFP 8 application contains information no more private than any of the other IFP applications that are 9 || regularly publicly filed with this Court.”); Rodionova v. Qatar Airways Grp. (Q.C.S.C.), 2025 WL 10 1870775, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2025) (denying Rodionova’s motion to seal IFP application 11 that included the same financial information as in this case); Firsov v. Frontier Airlines, Inc., 2025 12 || WL 1533138, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2025) (denying Firsov’s motion to seal IFP application); 13 Firsov v. Skyscanner, Inc., 2025 WL 1900328, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2025) (same). 14 || Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to seal is DENIED. 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 Dated: July 24, 2025 18 LAA. Lj — THOMAS S. HIXSON 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28