United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
to 28 U.S.C. §2241, petitioner Lilian Pahola Calderon
Jimenez seeks immediate release from detention by United
States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE")
and a stay of her removal from the United States until the
issues concerning whether she should be allowed to remain in
the United States permanently are finally determined.
Therefore, "unless the court orders otherwise, "
there are limits to remote access to electronic filings in
this case imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c).
Rule 5.2(c)(1) the parties and their attorneys have remote
electronic access to the complete record of the case.
However, under Rule 5.2(c) (2), "[r]emote electronic
access by nonparties is limited to the docket and the written
dispositions of the court unless the court orders
otherwise." Fed.R.Civ.P. 5.2, Advisory Committee Note to
2007 Amendment. Therefore, absent a court order, non-parties
are required to come to the courthouse to obtain access to
the full record. Id.
First Circuit has written:
In Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S.
589 (1978), the Supreme Court acknowledged that "the
courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect
and copy public records and documents, including judicial
records and documents." Id. at 597 (footnotes
omitted). The privilege extends, in the first instance, to
"materials on which a court relies in determining the
litigants' substantive rights." Anderson v.
Cryovac, Inc., 805 F.2d 1, 13 (1st Cir. 1986).
F.T.C. v. Standard Financial Management, 830 F.2d
404, 408 (1st Cir. 1987). The First Circuit explained:
Public access to judicial records and documents allows the
citizenry to "monitor the functioning of our courts,
thereby insuring quality, honesty and respect for our legal
system." In the Matter of Continental Illinois
Securities Litigation, 732 F.2d 1302, 1308 (7th Cir.
1984). The appropriateness of making court files accessible
is accentuated in cases where the government is a party: in
such circumstances, the public's right to know what the
executive branch is about coalesces with the concomitant
right of the citizenry to appraise the judicial branch.
Id. at 410.
public interest in this case, which was filed on February 5,
2018, is already manifest in articles in the national media,
and in Rhode Island and Maine as well. In addition,
petitioner's lawyers from the American Civil Liberties
Union of Massachusetts (the "ACLUM") have made her
petition and one but not both of the court's orders
available on its website. See ACLUM, ACLU Sues
to Release Mother of Two from ICE Detention, ACLUM.org,
The foregoing documents are not sealed.
of the presumption of public access to documents on which
judicial decisions are based, the heightened importance of
making court files accessible where the government is a
party, and the difficulty that some evidently interested
individuals and organizations would have in coming to the
courthouse in Boston, Massachusetts to obtain access to the
record of this case, the court finds that it is appropriate
to authorize all persons to have remote electronic access to
the full record of this case, subject to appropriate
it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The parties and their attorneys shall have remote
electronic access to any part of the file in this case,
including the administrative record. See Fed.R.Civ.P.
2. Any other person shall have remote electronic access to:
(a) the docket in this case, see Fed.R.Civ.P.
5.2(c)(2)(A); (b) each opinion, order or judgment of the
court, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 5.2(c)(2)(B); and (c) the
public record of this case.
3. If a submission includes information that a party believes
should not be part of the public record, see,
e.g., Fed.R.Civ.P. 5.2(a) and United States v.
Kravetz, 706 F.3d 47, 61-64 (1st Cir. 2013), it may file
the submission under seal with a motion to seal and a
redacted version for the public record. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 5.2(d); Rule 7.2 of ...