Todd Martin Squier v. Fayette County, KY, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee denied without prejudice the plaintiff’s procedurally noncompliant motions for temporary restraining orders. The court denied or provisionally granted various motions to seal, applying the presumption of public access and the requirements for narrowly tailored sealing. The court directed the plaintiff to complete service-related summonses and referred the action for magistrate-judge case management and pretrial proceedings.

Holdings

1. A pro se movant's request for a temporary restraining order must be made in a written motion separate from the complaint, accompanied by a memorandum of law and an affidavit or verified complaint, and supported by written certification of efforts to provide notice and why notice should not be required. Plaintiff's motions did not satisfy those requirements and therefore could not be considered on the merits.
2. A court may seal judicial records only upon a showing of compelling reasons, with the sealing narrowly tailored and supported by a document-by-document factual and legal analysis.
3. Plaintiff met his burden to justify sealing the proposed federal tax-return exhibit because tax returns are confidential by statute; the related sealing motions were granted provisionally because the tax return had not yet been filed.
4. After plaintiff paid the civil filing fee, the clerk was directed to send blank summonses for defendants for whom summonses had not issued, and plaintiff was responsible for completing and returning them within 30 days and ensuring service of each defendant.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff's two motions for a temporary restraining order complied with the procedural requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) and the Middle District of Tennessee's Local Rule 65.01.
2. Whether plaintiff demonstrated compelling reasons and narrow tailoring sufficient to seal the no-contact order and the Kentucky petition, summons, and return of summons.
3. Whether plaintiff demonstrated sufficient grounds to seal or submit under seal his federal tax return and life-insurance application.
4. Whether the clerk should issue summonses and what service obligations applied after plaintiff paid the civil filing fee.

Disposition

other