Truthout v. Department of Justice
Filing
30
ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 9/11/13 ORDERING that the Plaintiff file a brief in support of the requested redaction and sealing no later than 10/14/13; the Clerk is directed to maintain ECF 27-2 in redacted form and ECF 27-3 and 27-14 under seal until such time as the court orders otherwise. (Manzer, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
TRUTHOUT,
NO. CIV. S-12-2601 LKK/CKD
10
Plaintiff,
11
v.
O R D E R
12
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
13
Defendant.
/
14
15
The court is in receipt of plaintiff Truthout’s Emergency
16
Motion to Seal Three Docket Entries. (ECF No. 28.) On September 11,
17
2013, defendant U.S. Department of Justice filed a statement of
18
non-opposition to this motion. (ECF No. 29.) Plaintiff seeks the
19
redaction of its client’s privacy waiver and the sealing of its
20
client’s FBI file, both filed by defendant in support of the
21
latter’s summary judgment motion. (Hardy Decl. Exhs. C, Y, ECF
22
Nos. 27-2 at 66, 27-3, 27-4.)
23
Due to the sensitive nature of the information in these
24
documents, the court has ordered the Clerk of the Court to
25
provisionally redact Exhibit C and seal Exhibit Y.
26
Nevertheless, the court must safeguard the “general right to
1
1
inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial
2
records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S.
3
589,
4
‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of
5
access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of
6
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v.
7
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.
8
2003)). In order to overcome this strong presumption, a party
9
seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate justifications
10
for sealing that outweigh the historical right of access and the
11
public policies favoring disclosure. See id. at 1178–79.
597
(1978).
“Unless
a
particular
court
record
is
one
12
As the Ninth Circuit has made clear, “the resolution of a
13
dispute on the merits, whether by trial or summary judgment, is at
14
the heart of the interest in ensuring the ‘public’s understanding
15
of
16
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Valley Broad. Co. v. U.S. Dist.
17
Court for Dist. of Nev., 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986)).
18
Accordingly, a party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to
19
a dispositive motion must articulate “compelling reasons” in favor
20
of
21
reasons’ . . . exist when such ‘court files might have become a
22
vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to
23
gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous
24
statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. (citing Nixon, 435 U.S.
25
at 598).
26
the
judicial
sealing.
See
process
id.
and
at
of
significant
1178.
“In
public
general,
events.’”
‘compelling
Under the “compelling reasons” standard, a district court must
2
1
weigh “relevant factors,” base its decision “on a compelling
2
reason,” and “articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without
3
relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors
4
Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hagestad v.
5
Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)).
6
In light of the foregoing, the court hereby orders as follows:
7
[1] Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a brief in support of the
8
requested redaction and sealing no later than October 14,
9
2013.
In
its
brief,
in
addition
to
setting
forth
the
10
“compelling reasons” for its motion, plaintiff is to address
11
the issue of why sealing, rather than selective redaction, of
12
Exhibit Y is necessary. Plaintiff’s brief may be no longer
13
than twenty (20) pages in length.
14
[2] The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to maintain ECF
15
No. 27-2 at 66 in redacted form and ECF Nos. 27-3 and 27-4
16
under seal until such time as the court orders otherwise.
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
DATED:
September 11, 2013.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?