Gordon v. Wong, et al

Filing 444

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 11/16/2020 ORDERING Respondent to submit a new request to seal in accordance with Local Rule 141, setting forth the legal arguments and case law that justify sealing, within 14 days of this order's entry. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PATRICK BRUCE GORDON,

12
13
14
15

Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 2:91-cv-00882-MCE-JDP (DP)
ORDER TO RESUBMIT REQUEST TO SEAL
ECF No. 443

KEVIN CHAPPELL,
Respondent.

16
17

Respondent, alongside his response to petitioner’s “brief on all claims for relief,” ECF No.

18

421, has filed a notice of request to seal. ECF No. 443. Respondent states that his response to

19

petitioner’s claims “4(B) and 5” should be sealed because it contains information related to the

20

disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity. Id. at 2. Petitioner has not filed an objection to

21

the notice within the time allotted by the Local Rules. See Local Rule 141(c).

22

In the Ninth Circuit, there is a “strong presumption in favor of access to court records.”

23

See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). However, the

24

presumption is not absolute and “can be overridden given sufficiently compelling reasons for

25

doing so.” See id. Respondent has not offered sufficient legal argument that sealing is warranted

26

in either his notice on the public docket or his request to seal that was submitted to the court. He

27

cites no case law and relies solely on an eighteen-year old order in this case. ECF No. 443 at 2

28

(“By order dated April 10, 2002 (dkt. 273), this Court has designated the transcript of the July 17,
1

1

1984, San Joaquin County Superior Court in camera hearing on the issue of whether the

2

confidential informant’s identity should be revealed (which was ordered sealed by the San

3

Joaquin County Superior Court) as confidential.”). Circumstances and law change over the

4

course of nearly two decades and respondent cannot rely on that previous order alone. For

5

instance, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu which held that

6

a party seeking to seal documents attached to a dispositive motion had to show “compelling

7

reasons” for doing so had not yet been decided in 2002. 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (“In

8

sum, we treat judicial records attached to dispositive motions differently from records attached to

9

non-dispositive motions. Those who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to

10

dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that ‘compelling reasons’ support

11

secrecy.”). Rather than deny the request to seal, the court will order respondent to submit a new

12

request to seal in accordance with Local Rule 141. That request should set forth the legal

13

arguments and case law that justify sealing. The new request should be submitted within fourteen

14

days of this order’s entry.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
Dated:
18
19

November 16, 2020
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2