An interesting decision today from Magistrate Judge Kevin Doyle Milazzo against Antonio (D. Vt.), dealing with a question on which I had already discussed and written previously:
Self-represented plaintiff Bryan Milazzo brings this action against Peter Anthony [based on diversity of citizenship] …. Plaintiff seeks “exemplary damages for injuries suffered as a result of aiding and abetting Defendant Peter Anthony…sexual activity against Plaintiff, a minor…”.
Prior to filing this federal lawsuit, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant in state court in New York and Vermont based on the same or similar facts alleged in his federal complaint. The New York case remains pending. The Vermont Superior Court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint in 2023 for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The plaintiff filed his complaint in this Court on November 1, 2023….
Defendant sought to seal the motion to dismiss and various related documents (including the motion to file under seal itself), but the court said no. He began by noting the general presumption of public access to court documents, which is particularly strong with respect to documents potentially determining the outcome, such as motions to dismiss, and also “moderately strong” with respect to exhibits and with respect to concerns the motion to submit under seal. He then explained why a special Vermont sealing rule did not affect the analysis:
The documentation in the possession of the plaintiff [earlier] the case against the defendant in Vermont Superior Court was sealed “as requested [Defendant].” The defendant claims that because “the Vermont Superior Court sealed the document as required [Defendant] in the appellant’s case involving the same set of facts[,] …this Court should avoid inconsistent orders between the Superior Court and the United States District Court by ordering that the filing of cases be made under seal.” According to defendant, the Vermont Superior Court has sealed the concurrent proceedings of the state courts” pursuant to Vermont statutes, namely 12 VSA § 522(b).”
The Court is not convinced that the consistency between state and federal court sealing decisions justifies a categorical approach to sealing in this case. To the extent that consistency between federal and state court holding decisions could be considered a compensating factor, the argument would apply only to documents filed in Vermont Superior Court proceedings; namely, Exhibits B, C, and D attached to defendant’s motion to dismiss.
The Court is not aware of any case law that holds that consistency between federal and state court holding decisions is a legitimate countervailing factor….
First, as Defendant notes, the sealing in the Vermont Superior Court proceedings “was made pursuant to the Vermont statute, i.e., 12 VSA § 522(b).” In the relevant part, the statute provides:
If a complaint is made alleging an act of child sexual or physical abuse, the complaint will be immediately sealed by the clerk of the court. The complaint will remain secret until the answer is served or, if the defendant files a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure, until the court rules on such motion. If the complaint is denied, the complaint and all related documents or pleadings will remain sealed. Any hearing held in connection with the proposed dismissal will be held in camera.
Because Vermont statute requires sealing in cases involving an act of child sexual abuse, the Vermont Superior Court did not apply the federal common law presumption of public access or otherwise consider the public’s interest in access to court documents when he sealed the proceedings. Furthermore, the mandatory seal provision of § 522(b) does not control this Court’s application of federal law to the seal issue in this case. See Haynes vs. Haggerty (D. Vt. May 19, 2020) (holding the mandatory sealing language of 12 VSA § 522(b) inapplicable and instead conducting the sealing analysis under the federal common law presumption of public access because “federal law regulates motions to seal records in federal court even when a state law regulates the type of records in question.” If the Court finds that consistency between federal and state court sealing decisions is a countervailing factor that outweighs the presumption of access to court records, the decision would undermine federal law because prior state court sealing decisions, even in cases where the state court was required by state law to seal the documents in question – would effectively determine the issue of sealing under federal law….
And the court rejected the defendant’s privacy arguments, arguing among other things:
The defendant further states that “serious and clearly defined damage would result from disclosure of the document…”.[s]'” because of his status as an elected official in the Vermont Legislature. However, Defendant does not explain the nature of any resulting harm or how disclosure of the documents at issue could cause such harm. To the extent the alleged harm is based on the defendant’s concern that the information contained in the documents will bring negative publicity, this is not sufficient reason for a court to seal the documents. And to the extent the alleged harm arises from the sensitive nature of the plaintiff’s allegations, “while the defendant’s right to privacy is important, “the potential embarrassment” arising from the “highly sensitive nature” of child sexual abuse allegations presumably does not outweigh the public’s right to access.” defendant aided and abetted the alleged sexual abuse, not that the defendant himself sexually abused the plaintiff If the privacy interests of a defendant accused of committing sexual abuse do not presumptively outweigh the right of public access, HaynesEven the privacy interests of a defendant accused of aiding and abetting sexual abuse cannot prevail over the public’s right to access.
Furthermore, to the extent that Defendant’s privacy interests are rooted in the potential public release of the information contained in the documents at issue, the public and concurrent proceedings in New York State courts diminish those privacy interests. In considering a seal request in similar circumstances, this Court has previously explained that public records in related state litigation diminish a defendant’s privacy interests in the federal forum. This Court ultimately concluded that “this diminished interest in privacy does not outweigh the heavy presumption in favor of public access.”
Likewise, this case involves “duplicate” state court proceedings. While Defendant notes that pending state court proceedings in Vermont are sealed to him, Plaintiff asserts that state court proceedings in New York are unsealed and remain open to the public, thereby undermining “[a]any privacy claims by Defendant.” Defendant has a diminished privacy interest in many of the documents it asks the Court to seal because New York State court proceedings are accessible to the public. The parties also indicated at the hearing that the Vermont proceedings, the New York proceedings, and the present case are largely duplicative of each other, particularly with respect to the underlying factual allegations against Defendant Public Access to the New York proceedings substantially reduces Defendant’s privacy interests in the documents it seeks to seal….
I am extremely skeptical of the justice system’s ability to adjudicate charges arising from events more than 50 years ago, and I doubt the wisdom of states extending the statute of limitations in such cases. But the decision on the public’s right of access to court documents (the only issue at issue at this stage of the case) seems correct to me.