UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
KELLY SHOFNER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. Civil Action No. 26-931
SHENYANG DADONG DISTRICT
PEOPLE’S COURT, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Proceeding pro se, Plaintiffs Kelly and Joseph Shofner bring this action arising from an
early-education investment project in Shenyang, China, asserting claims under the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act, the Alien Tort Statute, and the Torture Victim Protection Act. See
ECF No. 1 (Compl.) at 1–4. Plaintiffs previously sought to place am unredacted Complaint and
voluminous exhibits under seal while leaving on the public docket only an eight-page pleading
largely devoid of substantive allegations. See ECF Nos. 2, 5 (Prior Sealing Mots.). The Court
denied that request without prejudice. See ECF No. 9 (Mem. Op. & Order). It explained that
any renewed submission should pair “a single operative Complaint filed on the public docket,
containing targeted redactions limited to particularized categories of sensitive information,” with
an unredacted version of that same Complaint under seal. Id. at 7.
Plaintiffs have now taken that route. Their first renewed Motion seeks to maintain an
unredacted Complaint under seal while publicly filing a version that redacts only discrete
identifying, financial, and locational information. See ECF No. 10 (Compl. Sealing Mot.) at 1–
4. Their second seeks similar treatment for a Supplemental Complaint, along with a host of
1
exhibits and other filings. See ECF No. 11 (Records Sealing Mot.). Because the renewed
request concerning the operative pleadings remedies the principal defect the Court previously
identified, the Court will grant the first Motion and grant the second in part. The remaining
requests concerning exhibits and ancillary filings are better left to the District Judge assigned to
this matter.
I. Legal Standard
Generally, a plaintiff or petitioner filing a civil action must identify the parties and file on
the public docket. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a); LCvR 5.1(c)(1). “The starting point in considering
a motion to seal court records is a strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial
proceedings.” Hardaway v. D.C. Hous. Auth., 843 F.3d 973, 980 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (quoting
EEOC v. Nat’l Children’s Ctr., Inc., 98 F.3d 1406, 1409 (D.C. Cir. 1996)). When a party seeks
to overcome this presumption and seal court records, courts engage in the six-factor inquiry
described in United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Those factors are:
(1) the need for public access to the documents at issue;
(2) the extent of previous public access to the documents;
(3) the fact that someone has objected to disclosure, and the identity of that
person;
(4) the strength of any property and privacy interests asserted;
(5) the possibility of prejudice to those opposing disclosure; and
(6) the purposes for which the documents were introduced during the judicial
proceedings.
Nat’l Children’s Ctr., 98 F.3d at 1409 (citing Hubbard, 650 F.2d at 317–22).
II. Analysis
A. Complaint
Plaintiffs’ renewed proposal looks markedly different from their prior attempt. The
earlier public Complaint was a shell that directed readers to a separate, largely secret pleading for
the allegations underlying Plaintiffs’ claims. See Mem. Op. & Order at 2–4. In contrast, the
2
proposed public Complaint now contains a more robust presentation of the factual narrative,
legal claims, and jurisdictional bases, with redactions confined to five categories of identifying
or sensitive information. See Compl. Sealing Mot. at 1–4; cf. Monbo v. United States, 2023 WL
7129866, at *1 (D.D.C. Sept. 7, 2023) (crediting targeted redactions that preserved public access
to nonconfidential material).
That change alters the Hubbard balance. The first and sixth factors generally favor
access to a complaint because it invokes the Court’s jurisdiction and supplies the allegations on
which the litigation proceeds. See United States ex rel. Durham v. Prospect Waterproofing, Inc.,
818 F. Supp. 2d 64, 67, 69 (D.D.C. 2011); Vanda Pharms., Inc. v. FDA, 539 F. Supp. 3d 44, 52–
53, 57 (D.D.C. 2021). Plaintiffs no longer ask to conceal that substance. Their public version
leaves the claims, theories of liability, and allegations concerning Defendants available for public
inspection while excising only discrete identifying details. Where a party seeks to redact only
portions of a pleading that do not bear on the claims themselves, the access interest is
correspondingly diminished. See United States v. Harris, 204 F. Supp. 3d 10, 17–18 (D.D.C.
2016) (presumption of access reduced where redacted material does not significantly implicate
“central claims of the litigation”); Doe v. Am. Univ., 2026 WL 872931, at *4 (D.D.C. Mar. 31,
2026) (approving minimal redactions that left the underlying claims publicly accessible).
The remaining factors likewise support the limited relief sought. Plaintiffs represent that
the particular information now withheld has not previously been publicly disclosed, rendering
the second factor neutral. See Compl. Sealing Mot. at 5; CNN v. FBI, 984 F.3d 114, 119 (D.C.
Cir. 2021); United States ex rel. Grover v. Related Cos., 4 F. Supp. 3d 21, 26 (D.D.C. 2013).
The third favors sealing because Plaintiffs themselves object to disclosure. See Zapp v. Zhenli
Ye Gon, 746 F. Supp. 2d 145, 149 (D.D.C. 2010). And the fourth favors the proposed
3
redactions, which concern identifying information about a nonparty family member and
witnesses in China, Plaintiffs’ residential and contact information, precise financial figures, and
particular location information that Plaintiffs contend could facilitate harassment. See Compl.
Sealing Mot. at 3–4. Hubbard itself recognized that valid privacy interests may attach to
information revealing “the intimate details of individual lives.” 650 F.2d at 324. The fifth factor
is neutral because Plaintiffs identify no prejudice in future litigation flowing from disclosure.
See Compl. Sealing Mot. at 5–6; United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius Baer & Co.,
520 F. Supp. 3d 71, 85 (D.D.C. 2020). On balance, the narrow redactions proposed in the public
Complaint overcome the presumption of access as to those discrete details.
B. Supplemental Complaint and Remaining Materials
The second Motion requires a small amount of sorting. It seeks protection for a
Supplemental Complaint as well as exhibit lists, underlying exhibits, a notice of new
developments, and an emergency motion. See Records Sealing Mot. at 1–8. Because the
Supplemental Complaint itself forms part of Plaintiffs’ pleadings, the Court will resolve the
Motion to that extent.
On that score, some proposed redactions rest on the same interests just discussed.
Plaintiffs seek to redact identifying and medical information concerning a nonparty family
member, references identifying their minor child, and discrete numerical details of bank
transactions. See Records Sealing Mot. at 5–6. Those categories implicate concrete privacy
interests, and their removal does not obscure the substance of Plaintiffs’ allegations. See, e.g.,
Doe v. Burrows, 2025 WL 1158071, at *3 (D.D.C. Apr. 21, 2025) (permitting redaction of
medical information); Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a). The Court will therefore permit those targeted
redactions.
4
Two other proposed redactions require closer attention, and they come out differently.
Plaintiffs first seek to redact the names of specific defense attorneys and their law firms that,
Plaintiffs allege, communicated confidential information to them. See Records Sealing Mot. at
6. Although the Motion does not develop the point at length, the interest at stake is apparent
from the redaction itself: these individuals are cooperating third parties whose identification on a
public docket would expose them to the same retaliation risks that underlie the witness-identity
redactions the Court has already approved. Their specific identities, moreover, are not
intertwined with Plaintiffs’ claims; the proposed substitute preserves the substance of the
allegations for public view. Cf. Hubbard, 650 F.2d at 319 (“[W]here a third party’s property and
privacy rights are at issue the need for minimizing intrusion is especially great . . . .”). The Court
will permit that redaction.
The name of the institutional body alleged to have participated in the conduct underlying
Plaintiffs’ claims stands on the opposite footing. By Plaintiffs’ own account, that body
“orchestrated the retaliatory arrests” at the center of this suit. See Records Sealing Mot. at 6. Its
identity is thus not peripheral detail but the substance of the operative allegations. The stronger
the connection between the information and the central claims, the stronger the presumption of
access. See Grover, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 28. Plaintiffs must therefore leave that name visible in the
public Supplemental Complaint.
The Court will not venture further into the remainder of the second Motion’s many
proposed redactions. Those requests concern the treatment of exhibits and ancillary filings rather
than the Complaint itself. This Court’s role in an unassigned matter is limited to resolving a
“motion to seal the complaint,” LCvR 40.7(f); the document-by-document management of later
filings belongs to the District Judge who will oversee the case. See Am. Univ., 2026 WL
5
872931, at *6 (declining to resolve requests to seal recordings, images, and other materials
because doing so “stretches beyond this Court’s preliminary review and into the casemanagement responsibilities” of the assigned judge). Because the remaining materials are
already maintained under seal, they may remain so pending further consideration by that Judge.
See LCvR 5.1(h)(1).
III. Conclusion
The Court accordingly ORDERS that:
1. Plaintiffs’ [10] Motion to Seal is GRANTED;
2. Plaintiffs’ [11] Motion to Seal is GRANTED IN PART insofar as it seeks to
maintain the unredacted Supplemental Complaint under seal, and DENIED IN
PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the remaining materials;
3. Within fourteen days of this Order, Plaintiffs shall file on the public docket public
versions of the [10-3] Complaint and [11-2] Supplemental Complaint redacted
consistent with this Opinion; and
4. The unredacted versions of the Complaint and Supplemental Complaint, as well
as the other materials presently maintained under seal, shall remain sealed subject
to any further consideration by the United States District Judge to whom this case
is randomly assigned.
/s/ James E. Boasberg
JAMES E. BOASBERG
Chief Judge
Date: August 8, 2026
6