Glaum v. Braun et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Joseph E. Glaum, 	)
) 	ORDER
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	)
)
Colby Braun and Joseph Joyce, 	)
) 	Case No. 1:24-cv-146
Defendants. 	)
On October 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. (Doc. No. 89).
Therein he requests leave to file an affidavit from another inmate at the North Dakota State
Penitentiary (“NDSP”) under seal. 	Noting that the affiiant initiated his own case in federal court
involving issues similar to those in the instant case, Plaintiff asserts that it is imperative this affidavit
be filed under seal in order to (1) protect the affiant, (2) protect himself and other inmates vulnerable
to retaliation at the NDSP, and (3) avoid possible bias or other negative impacts on his future
appeals. He further asserts that sealing this affidavit “does not substantially interfere with what the
public has access to” and that “it would be more beneficial than not to allowing sealing this one
document.” (Id.).
It is well-established that the public has a common-law right of access to judicial records.
Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). This right of access is not absolute,
but requires a weighing of competing interests. The decision to file a document under seal is a
matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court. 	See Webster Groves Sch. Dist. v. Pulitzer
Publ’g Co., 898 F.2d 1371, 1376 (8th Cir. 1990). A party seeking to seal a judicial record must
demonstrate a compelling interest which overrides the qualified First Amendment right of public
1
Case 1:24-cv-00146-CRH Document 92 Filed 10/30/25 Page 1 of 2

access enjoyed by the public and press. United States v. McDougal, 103 F.3d 651, 658 (8th Cir.
1996). A court deciding to seal a document must explain why sealing was necessary and why less
restrictive alternatives were not appropriate. See In re Search Warrant for Secretarial Area Outside
Office of Gunn, 855 F.2d 569, 574 (8th Cir. 1988); In re Sealed Documents, Standing Order (D.N.D.
Sept. 30, 2011).
Plaintiff’s request to seal the affiant’s affidavit is nonsensical. First, Plaintiff appears to be
laboring under the misapprehension that the affidavit will be shielded from Defendants view if filed
under seal. While sealed documents are inaccessible to the general public, they can be accessed by
the parties. Second, there is nothing confidential in affiant’s affidavit that requires it to be filed
under seal. 	As Plaintiff acknowledges, the affiant filed his own federal case. See Davis v. Braun,
Case No. 1:25-cv-137 (D.N.D.) at Doc. No. 9. In the present affidavit, the affiant discusses the
alleged conduct forming the bases for his claims in his own federal case. See id. Thus, the substance
of the present affidavit is already publicly available in the affiant’s filings in his own case.
For the reasons discussed above and in the exercise of its discretion, the court DENIES
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Doc. No. 89).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 30th day of October, 2025.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
2
Case 1:24-cv-00146-CRH Document 92 Filed 10/30/25 Page 2 of 2