Case 1:13-cv-00298-KBJ Document 21 Filed 09/06/13 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA KENNETH L. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 13-cv-00298 (KBJ HONS. ANTONIN G. SCALIA et al. Defendants. MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE PLAINTIFF TO REDACT PERSONAL INFORMATION FROM PUBLIC FILINGS AND MOTION TO SEAL FILINGS CONTAINING THAT PERSONAL INFORMATION For the reasons stated below, the Federal Judicial Defendants 1 hereby move for an Order directing the Plaintiff to redact from all filings in this case the personal information, i.e., home addresses, of the federal judges Pro se Plaintiff Kenneth L. Smith has named as Defendants in the above captioned action, and move to seal all un-redacted filings containing that information, including without limitation ECF Nos. 1, 2-5, 7-14, 16-19. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(m, the undersigned counsel (the AUSA has conferred with Plaintiff, and although Plaintiff agreed to cease delivering any filings related to this case to Defendants home addresses, 2 he opposes the relief requested in this motion. There is good cause to grant this motion. 1 The undersigned counsel is the legal representative and authorized to accept service on behalf of every judge named in the First Amended Complaint ( Complaint, ECF No. 8, except U.S. District Court Judge Bates and U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Judges Sentelle, Rogers, and Rogers-Brown. 2 In conferring with Plaintiff, the AUSA explained that Plaintiff needed to effectuate service in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i, which provides that: To serve the United States, a party must: deliver a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the United States attorney for the district where the action is brought or to an assistant United States attorney or clerical employee whom the United States attorney designates in a writing filed with the court clerk or send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the civil-process clerk at the United States attorney s office. The AUSA provided Plaintiff with the address of his office so he could properly serve Defendants in this action.
Case 1:13-cv-00298-KBJ Document 21 Filed 09/06/13 Page 2 of 4 Plaintiff s Complaint is the latest in a series of cases he has filed against numerous federal judges in various federal courts, all of which stem from the Colorado Supreme Court s denial of his application for admission to the Colorado bar after he refused to submit to a mental health examination. See, e.g., Smith v. Krieger et al., 389 F. App x 789, 800 (10 th Cir. 2010 (affirming imposition of filing restrictions and monetary sanctions on Plaintiff because he has persisted in making unsupported allegations of judicial corruption, baseless claims, and personal attacks on the judges of the district court, this court, and several Justices of the United States Supreme Court and the Colorado Supreme Court and because [h]is briefs contain vulgar language, threats of lethal violence against judges rendering decisions he considers tyrannical, and tirades on a number of irrelevant topics ; Smith v. Thomas et al., Civil Action No. 10-5041 (D.C. Cir. 2010 (Per Curiam (denying Plaintiff s petition for mandamus relief. Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and is therefore entitled to a liberal construction of his filings, he is still required to comply with the procedural rules applicable to all litigants. See, e.g., Richards v. Duke University, 480 F.Supp.2d 222, 234 (D.D.C. 2007 (noting that attorneys and experienced litigants are not automatically subject to the very liberal standards afforded to a non-attorney pro se plaintiff because an attorney is presumed to have a knowledge of the legal system and need less protections from the court, aff'd, No. 07 5119, 2007 WL 4589770, 2007 U.S.App. LEXIS 30275 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 27, 2007. In addition, the Court has the discretion to seal the record to maintain an individual s privacy. In exercising its discretion for the more extreme step of sealing the entire record of a case, the D.C. Circuit has directed consideration of these factors: (1 the need for public access to the documents; (2 the extent of previous public access to the documents; (3 the fact that 2
Case 1:13-cv-00298-KBJ Document 21 Filed 09/06/13 Page 3 of 4 someone objects to the disclosure and the strength of the claimed interest; (4 the strength of any property or privacy interests asserted; (5 the possibility of prejudice to any party opposing the seal; and (6 the purposes for which documents will be introduced during the judicial proceedings. See United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293, 317-22 (D.C. Cir. 1980. Here, the balance of these factors weighs heavily in favor of allowing the Federal Judicial Defendants to keep their home addresses out of the public realm. First, the public has no legitimate need to know the judges home addresses, and that information would not normally be available to the public. The Federal Judicial Defendants have a considerable privacy interest in protecting this information from public disclosure. Plaintiff s filing of the Federal Judicial Defendants home addresses on the public record creates a security concern for them and their families. See generally Baez v. Connelly, 2012 WL 1352319, *2 (1 st Cir. Apr. 19, 2012; Tindle v. Xenos, 2010 WL 4739787, *3 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 16, 2010 (providing that law enforcement personnel s home addresses would be filed under seal and subject to a protective order. Taking the limited step of placing the Federal Judicial Defendants home addresses under seal appropriately protects their privacy and security interests without infringing on the public s access to substantive information about this case. The Federal Judicial Defendants, therefore, move for an Order: (1 directing the Plaintiff to redact the home addresses of the Federal Judicial Defendants named in Plaintiff s Complaint from all public filings in this action, (2 placing under seal the prior filings that disclosed that information (ECF Nos. 1, 2-5, 7-14, 16-19, and (3 directing Plaintiff to file redacted versions of his prior submissions (ECF Nos. 1, 2-5, 7-14, 16-19. A proposed order is attached hereto. 3
Case 1:13-cv-00298-KBJ Document 21 Filed 09/06/13 Page 4 of 4 Dated: September 6, 2013 Respectfully submitted, RONALD C. MACHEN JR. D.C. Bar # 447889 United States Attorney DANIEL F. VAN HORN D.C. Bar # 924092 Chief, Civil Division By: Mitchell Zeff MITCHELL P. ZEFF, D.C. BAR #494066 Assistant United States Attorney 555 Fourth St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Phone: (202 514-7352 Fax: (202 514-8780 Email: Mitchell.Zeff@usdoj.gov Counsel for Defendants 4
Case 1:13-cv-00298-KBJ Document 21-1 Filed 09/06/13 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA KENNETH L. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 13-cv-00298 (KBJ HONS. ANTONIN G. SCALIA et al. Defendants. PROPOSED ORDER Upon consideration of the Federal Defendants Motion for Order, the entire record herein, and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is granted, and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff redact the home addresses of the Federal Judicial Defendants named in Plaintiff s Complaint from all public filings in this action, and it is it is FURTHER ORDERED that ECF Nos. 1, 2-5, 7-14, 16-19 shall be placed under seal, and FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file redacted versions of ECF Nos. 1, 2-5, 7-14, 16-19, and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall redact the home addresses of the Federal Judicial Defendants named in Plaintiff s Complaint from all public filings in this action. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE