CHARLES v. CHAMBERS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION KYNNEDI'RAE JOAN CHARLES, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-cv-153 (MTT) ) GARY WAYNE CHAMBERS, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) __________________ ) ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Kynnedi’rae Joan Charles moves the Court to have her “personal information,” such as her full name, address, and date of birth “sealed from public viewing.” Doc. 32. For the following reasons, Charles’s motion to seal is without merit.

The public enjoys a qualified common law right of access to judicial proceedings. See generally Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001). The right applies to all materials submitted “in connection with a substantive motion.” Id. at 1312-13. The Court must balance the interest of the parties and the public and may consider, among other factors, “whether allowing access would impair court functions or harm legitimate privacy interests, the degree of and likelihood of injury if made public, the reliability of the information, whether there will be an opportunity to respond to the information, whether the information concerns public officials or public concerns, and the availability of a less onerous alternative to sealing the documents.”

Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007).

Charles does not provide any reason whatsoever in her one-page motion for her newfound privacy concerns. In any event, such an accommodation would run afoul of Rule 11’s signature requirement which states “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by … a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer’s address, e-mail address, and telephone number.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a).1 As such, Charles’s motion to seal (Doc.

32) is DENIED.2 SO ORDERED, this 6th day of January, 2022.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1 Charles’s instant motion violates Rule 11’s signature requirement because it only contains her signature and the date. See Doc. 32. The Court advises Charles to carefully review Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and expects Charles’s future filings to follow that rule.

2 Charles also requests the Court “update her current address.” Doc. 32. While the Court is happy to oblige, Charles’s “updated address” is already her address of record. Doc. 30 at 2.