Summary:
In In re Drysdale, the Court denied two motions filed by pro se Chapter 13 Debtor Katherine Danielle Drysdale seeking to entirely seal her bankruptcy case from public view on PACER. Her initial "Motion to Restrict Public Access" and subsequent "Emergency Ex Parte Motion to Temporarily Seal Entire Docket" invoked 11 U.S.C. § 107(b) and Bankruptcy Rule 9037, broadly citing concerns about identity theft, potential danger to her minor son, and future filings that might contain "scandalous" or "confidential commercial" information.
Judge Laura T. Beyer declined to hold a hearing—after the Debtor refused to notice one and vocally opposed the idea—and ruled directly on the motions. The Court emphasized the presumption of public access to bankruptcy proceedings under both the First Amendment and Bankruptcy Code § 107(a). While the Code allows for limited redaction or sealing in cases involving trade secrets, defamatory content, or identifiable data that presents a risk of identity theft, the Debtor's request to wholesale seal the docket and prevent future public posting of filings "inverts" the statute’s purpose and lacks any individualized, cognizable showing.
The Court concluded that the Debtor failed to assert any specific grounds for sealing beyond what would apply generically to most bankruptcy filers and that she did not even identify any actual filings—past or future—that met the narrow statutory exceptions. She was encouraged to redact personal identifiers pursuant to Rule 9037 and to file appropriately tailored motions in the future, should a specific need arise.
Commentary:
This decision is a strong reaffirmation that bankruptcy is, and must remain, a public process, even in the digital age where PACER enables widespread access. While courts appropriately recognize privacy concerns in narrow instances—especially under Rule 9037 and § 107(b)—Judge Beyer made clear that a Debtor cannot demand wholesale secrecy based on speculative or generalized fears. The irony here is that the Debtor's attempts to seal the docket only further highlighted the content of her filings and drew judicial attention to procedural missteps, including a refusal to notice a hearing and unsupported accusations against the Court.
For consumer practitioners, Drysdale serves as a reminder to be mindful of sensitive information in filings—but also to counsel clients on the inherently public nature of bankruptcy. If the privacy concerns are serious enough, perhaps bankruptcy is not the appropriate remedy—or sealing requests must be narrowly tailored and well-supported. Courts are not inclined to build “shadow dockets” hidden from public scrutiny.
Moreover, Drysdale demonstrates the limits of self-help in bankruptcy. By refusing to follow procedural requirements for noticed motions or cooperate with the Court’s process, the Debtor ensured her arguments would not get far—even if there had been a more persuasive basis. The door remains open to redactions or future narrowly targeted sealing requests, but the Court will not countenance turning off the lights entirely on a Chapter 13 case.
As the Western District's own Garlock litigation demonstrated a decade ago, transparency in bankruptcy protects the public, the judiciary, and even the parties themselves. Practitioners should treat sealing as the exception, not the rule—and be prepared to pay the price (procedurally and substantively) to obtain it.
While unmentioned in the opinion, the tone, content, and procedural irregularities in the case strongly suggest either the involvement of a BPP, sovereign citizen beliefs, or both. Additional review of the petition itself (e.g., form completion, declaration of preparer, debtor’s statements) would confirm these suspicions more concretely.
With proper attribution, please share this post.
To read a copy of the transcript, please see:
Blog comments