HOWITZ v. CITY OF CAMBRIDGE (2026)

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Dan HOWITZ, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 24-11993-NMG

Decided: July 15, 2026

Dan Howitt, Boston, MA, Pro Se.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Plaintiff Dan Howitz, proceeding pro se, has filed a motion to seal previous filings (Docket No. 23) and a motion for a virtual hearing on his previously denied motion to seal (Docket No. 24). Those motions will be DENIED.

The public has a presumptive right of access to judicial records. See Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1987). That right, of course, is not absolute. Compelling private interests can outweigh the usual presumption. Siedle v. Putnam Invs., Inc., 147 F.3d 7, 10 (1st Cir. 1998). The court “enjoys considerable leeway” in making such a determination. Id.

Here, plaintiff contends that his various federal cases have, inter alia, negatively impacted his housing and employment prospects. That is insufficient justification for sealing the case. Courts in this district have repeatedly found that potential stigma from a public case does not defeat the presumptive public right of access. See, e.g., Chikel v. Steward Health Care Sys., LLC, 2018 WL 11463444, at *2 (D. Mass. Nov. 7, 2018).

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to seal and motion for a hearing (Docket Nos. 23 and 24) are denied.

So ordered.

Gorton, Senior United States District Judge

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network