Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law

Kahsai v. Dejoy

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota

Kahsai v. Dejoy

Trial Court Opinion

                   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          
                      DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                              
BEREKET KAHSAI,                                                          
                                     Civil No. 20-1060 (JRT/DLM)         
                       Plaintiff,                                        

v.                                                                       
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER            
LOUIS DEJOY,                      DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO         
U.S. Postmaster General,            UNSEAL COURT DOCUMENTS               

                      Defendant.                                         

    Bereket Kahsai, 4037 42nd Avenue South, Minneapolis MN 55406, pro se 
    Plaintiff; Heather Gilbert, GILBERT LAW, PLLC, 4856 Banning Avenue, St. 
    Paul, MN 55110, for Plaintiff.                                       

    Trevor  Brown,  UNITED  STATES  ATTORNEY’S  OFFICE,  300  South  Fourth 
    Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for Defendant.             


    Plaintiff Bereket Kahsai, an employee of the United States Postal Service (“USPS”), 
brought this employment discrimination dispute against Postmaster General Louis Dejoy.  
Because the facts of this action have been comprehensively addressed in prior rulings, 
the Court will only address the facts relevant to the present motions.  See Kahsai v. Dejoy, 
No. 20-1060,
2024 WL 112276
, at *1–2 (D. Minn. Jan. 10, 2024).  The Court previously 
dismissed some of Kahsai’s claims and later granted the Postmaster General’s motion for 
summary judgment on the remaining claims because they were untimely, and no tolling 
doctrine applied.  Id. at *2, 5.  Kahsai appealed the summary judgment order to the Eighth 
Circuit.  (Notice of Appeal to 8th Cir., Feb. 7, 2024, Docket No. 115.)  He subsequently filed 
two motions to unseal court documents, which are now before the Court.    

    In his motions, Kahsai claims that the Court “has sealed some documents between 
the  Court  and  Defendant  including  audio,  video,  and  text  files,  pertaining  to  the 
performance report, personal health experimental trial, and other relevant documents, 
which are relevant and important to [Kahsai].”  (Mot. to De-Sealed Court Docs. at 1, Feb. 

7, 2024, Docket No. 120; Mot. to Unseal Court Docs. at 2, Mar. 5, 2024, Docket No. 124.)  
He  asserts  that  the  documents  include  “reports,  professional  and  non-professional 
observations, as well as any expert and non-expert reports discovered or obtained and 

documents possessed by [USPS].”  (Mot. to De-Sealed Court Docs. at 1; Mot. to Unseal 
Court Docs. at 2.)  Kahsai requests that the Court unseal these documents so that he may 
use them to prepare for his case.  (Mot. to De-Sealed Court Docs. at 2; Mot. to Unseal 
Court Docs. at 2.)  He claims that the Court cannot seal these documents “unless there 

are unusual things present in them and has no concern with anyone.”  (Mot. to De-Sealed 
Court Docs. at 2; Mot. to Unseal Court Docs. at 2.)  Kahsai argues that “sealed documents 
are part of the discovery process and should be accessible to the parties involved,” and 
that he has a right to access relevant court records and documents necessary to prepare 

for his case.  (Mot. to Unseal Court Docs. at 3–4.)1  Additionally, he cites to three cases for 


    1 Kahsai cites to
28 U.S.C. § 2101
 in arguing that “public access to court records is a 
fundamental aspect of the legal system.”  (Mot. to Unseal Court Docs. at 3.)  That statute lays out 
rules for appealing decisions to the Supreme Court and has no bearing on this action. 
the proposition that the public and press have a constitutional right to access certain 
court proceedings and records, that parties are entitled to obtain information relevant to 

their cases, and that pro se litigants’ pleadings are to be held to less stringent standards 
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.  See Press-Enter. Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal. for 
Riverside Cnty.,
478 U.S. 1
 (1986); Hickman v. Taylor,
329 U.S. 495
 (1947); Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519
 (1972).                                                      

    A threshold matter is whether the Court has jurisdiction to consider Kahsai’s 
motions because Kahsai has filed an appeal to the Eighth Circuit.  Generally, a notice of 
appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over matters on appeal.  State ex. rel. Nixon 
v. Coeur D’Alene Tribe,
164 F.3d 1102
, 1106 (8th Cir. 1999).  Here, Kahsai appealed the 

Court’s order granting the Postmaster General’s motion for summary judgment to the 
Eighth Circuit.  While that appeal is pending, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider other 
aspects of the case, including Kahsai’s motions to unseal court documents.  As a result, 

the Court will deny Kahsai’s motions to unseal court documents for lack of jurisdiction. 
    Even  if  the Court did have  jurisdiction,  however, it would  still  deny Kahsai’s 
motions.    The  Court  is  unsure  which  sealed  documents  Kahsai  is  requesting  to  be 
unsealed, so the Court will liberally construe his request to be either: (1) a request to 

unseal exhibits that  are  sealed  in  the case docket;  or (2) a request to  compel  the 
Postmaster General to continue with discovery.  Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94
 (2007) 
(“A  document  filed  pro  se  is  to  be  liberally  construed.”)  (internal  quotation  marks 
omitted).  The Court will briefly address each possible request in turn.  

    First, exhibits pertaining to this action have been sealed, meaning that the exhibits 
are accessible only to counsel, the parties to the case, and the Court.  (See, e.g., Sealed 
Exhibits, Feb. 7, 2024, Docket No. 117.)  Kahsai is correct that there is a common-law right 
to access public judicial records, but that right is not absolute.  IDT Corp. v. eBay,
709 F.3d 1220, 1222
 (8th Cir. 2013) (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,
435 U.S. 589, 597
 
(1978)).  In fact, this right may be overridden where there are sufficient grounds to 
maintain confidentiality of the sealed documents.  Id. at 1223.  In such situations, the 

Court must balance the common-law right to access with competing interests served by 
confidentiality.  Id.  Given the sensitive, personal information contained in employment 
discrimination disputes, the Court restricted public access to these documents as a matter 
of course.  And in any event, as the plaintiff in this case, Kahsai continues to have complete 

access to these documents on the docket.  Because he is already able to use these 
documents  to  prepare  for  his  appeal,  his  requests  to  unseal  the  documents  are 
unnecessary.                                                              
    Second, to the extent that Kahsai requests that the Court compel the Postmaster 

General to continue discovery on the merits of his claims, the Court cannot grant his 
request.  The Court previously divided discovery in this action into two phases: the first 
to address whether Kahsai’s claims that were not dismissed were timely, and the second 
to address the merits of those claims.  Kahsai v. Dejoy,
2024 WL 112276
, at *2.  After the 
first phase of discovery, the Court found that Kahsai’s claims were untimely and granted 
summary judgment to the Postmaster General.  /d. at *5.  The summary judgment order 

was a  final ruling that concluded the case.  See Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank,
575 U.S. 496, 506
 (2015)  (“An order granting  a  motion for summary judgment is final.”).  The Court 
cannot compel discovery after the case has concluded. 
      In sum, because Kahsai has appealed a final order, the Court lacks jurisdiction to 
rule on his subsequent motions to unseal court documents.  Yet even if the Court did have 
jurisdiction,  it would  still  deny the  motions  because  Kahsai  already  has access to the 
sealed  documents  and  because the  Court will  not  compel  the  Postmaster General  to 
continue discovery in a closed case.

ORDER

      Based on the foregoing, and  all the files,  records, and  proceedings herein,  IT IS 
HEREBY ORDERED that: 
      1.  Plaintiff’s Motion to De-Sealed Court Documents [Docket No. 120] is DENIED; 
         and 
      2.  Plaintiff's Motion to Unseal Court Documents [Docket No. 124] is DENIED. 

DATED:  March 22, 2024                            dot. KM. (shin 
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.                         JOHN R. TUNHEIM 
                                             United States District Judge 

                                     -5-

Trial Court Opinion

                   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          
                      DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                              
BEREKET KAHSAI,                                                          
                                     Civil No. 20-1060 (JRT/DLM)         
                       Plaintiff,                                        

v.                                                                       
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER            
LOUIS DEJOY,                      DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO         
U.S. Postmaster General,            UNSEAL COURT DOCUMENTS               

                      Defendant.                                         

    Bereket Kahsai, 4037 42nd Avenue South, Minneapolis MN 55406, pro se 
    Plaintiff; Heather Gilbert, GILBERT LAW, PLLC, 4856 Banning Avenue, St. 
    Paul, MN 55110, for Plaintiff.                                       

    Trevor  Brown,  UNITED  STATES  ATTORNEY’S  OFFICE,  300  South  Fourth 
    Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for Defendant.             


    Plaintiff Bereket Kahsai, an employee of the United States Postal Service (“USPS”), 
brought this employment discrimination dispute against Postmaster General Louis Dejoy.  
Because the facts of this action have been comprehensively addressed in prior rulings, 
the Court will only address the facts relevant to the present motions.  See Kahsai v. Dejoy, 
No. 20-1060,
2024 WL 112276
, at *1–2 (D. Minn. Jan. 10, 2024).  The Court previously 
dismissed some of Kahsai’s claims and later granted the Postmaster General’s motion for 
summary judgment on the remaining claims because they were untimely, and no tolling 
doctrine applied.  Id. at *2, 5.  Kahsai appealed the summary judgment order to the Eighth 
Circuit.  (Notice of Appeal to 8th Cir., Feb. 7, 2024, Docket No. 115.)  He subsequently filed 
two motions to unseal court documents, which are now before the Court.    

    In his motions, Kahsai claims that the Court “has sealed some documents between 
the  Court  and  Defendant  including  audio,  video,  and  text  files,  pertaining  to  the 
performance report, personal health experimental trial, and other relevant documents, 
which are relevant and important to [Kahsai].”  (Mot. to De-Sealed Court Docs. at 1, Feb. 

7, 2024, Docket No. 120; Mot. to Unseal Court Docs. at 2, Mar. 5, 2024, Docket No. 124.)  
He  asserts  that  the  documents  include  “reports,  professional  and  non-professional 
observations, as well as any expert and non-expert reports discovered or obtained and 

documents possessed by [USPS].”  (Mot. to De-Sealed Court Docs. at 1; Mot. to Unseal 
Court Docs. at 2.)  Kahsai requests that the Court unseal these documents so that he may 
use them to prepare for his case.  (Mot. to De-Sealed Court Docs. at 2; Mot. to Unseal 
Court Docs. at 2.)  He claims that the Court cannot seal these documents “unless there 

are unusual things present in them and has no concern with anyone.”  (Mot. to De-Sealed 
Court Docs. at 2; Mot. to Unseal Court Docs. at 2.)  Kahsai argues that “sealed documents 
are part of the discovery process and should be accessible to the parties involved,” and 
that he has a right to access relevant court records and documents necessary to prepare 

for his case.  (Mot. to Unseal Court Docs. at 3–4.)1  Additionally, he cites to three cases for 


    1 Kahsai cites to
28 U.S.C. § 2101
 in arguing that “public access to court records is a 
fundamental aspect of the legal system.”  (Mot. to Unseal Court Docs. at 3.)  That statute lays out 
rules for appealing decisions to the Supreme Court and has no bearing on this action. 
the proposition that the public and press have a constitutional right to access certain 
court proceedings and records, that parties are entitled to obtain information relevant to 

their cases, and that pro se litigants’ pleadings are to be held to less stringent standards 
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.  See Press-Enter. Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal. for 
Riverside Cnty.,
478 U.S. 1
 (1986); Hickman v. Taylor,
329 U.S. 495
 (1947); Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519
 (1972).                                                      

    A threshold matter is whether the Court has jurisdiction to consider Kahsai’s 
motions because Kahsai has filed an appeal to the Eighth Circuit.  Generally, a notice of 
appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over matters on appeal.  State ex. rel. Nixon 
v. Coeur D’Alene Tribe,
164 F.3d 1102
, 1106 (8th Cir. 1999).  Here, Kahsai appealed the 

Court’s order granting the Postmaster General’s motion for summary judgment to the 
Eighth Circuit.  While that appeal is pending, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider other 
aspects of the case, including Kahsai’s motions to unseal court documents.  As a result, 

the Court will deny Kahsai’s motions to unseal court documents for lack of jurisdiction. 
    Even  if  the Court did have  jurisdiction,  however, it would  still  deny Kahsai’s 
motions.    The  Court  is  unsure  which  sealed  documents  Kahsai  is  requesting  to  be 
unsealed, so the Court will liberally construe his request to be either: (1) a request to 

unseal exhibits that  are  sealed  in  the case docket;  or (2) a request to  compel  the 
Postmaster General to continue with discovery.  Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94
 (2007) 
(“A  document  filed  pro  se  is  to  be  liberally  construed.”)  (internal  quotation  marks 
omitted).  The Court will briefly address each possible request in turn.  

    First, exhibits pertaining to this action have been sealed, meaning that the exhibits 
are accessible only to counsel, the parties to the case, and the Court.  (See, e.g., Sealed 
Exhibits, Feb. 7, 2024, Docket No. 117.)  Kahsai is correct that there is a common-law right 
to access public judicial records, but that right is not absolute.  IDT Corp. v. eBay,
709 F.3d 1220, 1222
 (8th Cir. 2013) (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,
435 U.S. 589, 597
 
(1978)).  In fact, this right may be overridden where there are sufficient grounds to 
maintain confidentiality of the sealed documents.  Id. at 1223.  In such situations, the 

Court must balance the common-law right to access with competing interests served by 
confidentiality.  Id.  Given the sensitive, personal information contained in employment 
discrimination disputes, the Court restricted public access to these documents as a matter 
of course.  And in any event, as the plaintiff in this case, Kahsai continues to have complete 

access to these documents on the docket.  Because he is already able to use these 
documents  to  prepare  for  his  appeal,  his  requests  to  unseal  the  documents  are 
unnecessary.                                                              
    Second, to the extent that Kahsai requests that the Court compel the Postmaster 

General to continue discovery on the merits of his claims, the Court cannot grant his 
request.  The Court previously divided discovery in this action into two phases: the first 
to address whether Kahsai’s claims that were not dismissed were timely, and the second 
to address the merits of those claims.  Kahsai v. Dejoy,
2024 WL 112276
, at *2.  After the 
first phase of discovery, the Court found that Kahsai’s claims were untimely and granted 
summary judgment to the Postmaster General.  /d. at *5.  The summary judgment order 

was a  final ruling that concluded the case.  See Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank,
575 U.S. 496, 506
 (2015)  (“An order granting  a  motion for summary judgment is final.”).  The Court 
cannot compel discovery after the case has concluded. 
      In sum, because Kahsai has appealed a final order, the Court lacks jurisdiction to 
rule on his subsequent motions to unseal court documents.  Yet even if the Court did have 
jurisdiction,  it would  still  deny the  motions  because  Kahsai  already  has access to the 
sealed  documents  and  because the  Court will  not  compel  the  Postmaster General  to 
continue discovery in a closed case.

ORDER

      Based on the foregoing, and  all the files,  records, and  proceedings herein,  IT IS 
HEREBY ORDERED that: 
      1.  Plaintiff’s Motion to De-Sealed Court Documents [Docket No. 120] is DENIED; 
         and 
      2.  Plaintiff's Motion to Unseal Court Documents [Docket No. 124] is DENIED. 

DATED:  March 22, 2024                            dot. KM. (shin 
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.                         JOHN R. TUNHEIM 
                                             United States District Judge 

                                     -5-

Reference

Status
Unknown
↑