Ramirez v. Burwell et al

Filing 57

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/26/17 ORDERING that the court grants the parties requests to seal the unredacted versions of these documents and orders that redacted versions be filed. The parties shall, within 14 days of the entry of this order, file appropriately redacted versions of these documents sufficient to protect P.A.s personal information.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

ALBERTINA RAMIREZ, as next friend of
P.A., a minor,
Petitioner,

13

ORDER
v.

14
15

No. 2:16-cv-1511-TLN-EFB P

SYLVIA MATTHEWS BURWELL, et al.,
Respondents.

16
17

Petitioner Albertina Ramirez, grandmother and next friend of P.A., a minor, has, through

18
19

counsel, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and complaint for declaratory and injunctive

20

relief seeking P.A.’s release from custody in BCFS Fairfield, a “staff secure care facility,” under

21

federal immigration authority. ECF No. 5 (Amended Petition and Complaint); ECF No. 36

22

(Resp’t’s Notice of P.A.’s transfer from Yolo County Juvenile Detention to BCFS Fairfield). The

23

parties inform the court that P.A. was released to his mother on December 8, 2016, and that the

24

case may be dismissed under Rule 41(a) after the court resolves currently-pending requests to seal

25

various filings. ECF No. 55.
E.D. Cal. Local Rule 141 governs requests to seal documents. That rule provides that

26
27

documents may be sealed by order of the court upon the showing required by law. L.R. 141(a).

28

/////
1

1

It requires the party making the request to “set forth the statutory or other authority for sealing,

2

the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to be permitted access to the

3

other documents, and all other relevant information.” L.R. 141(b).

4

The “showing required by law” referred to by our Local Rule is a high one. The court

5

operates under a strong presumption in favor of access to court records. Ctr. for Auto Safety v.

6

Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (2016). Accordingly, a party seeking to file

7

something under seal must present “compelling reasons” supporting the request.1 Id. The

8

compelling reasons standard requires the court to: (1) find a compelling reason supporting sealing

9

the record and (2) articulate the factual basis for the sealing the record, without relying on

10

hypothesis or conjecture. Id. at 1096-97. The court must conscientiously balance the competing

11

interests of the public and the party who wishes to keep the documents private. Id. at 1097.

12

“What constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is ‘best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.’”

13

Id. (quoting Nixon v, Warner Commnc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)). Some examples of

14

records for which there are compelling reasons to seal are: (1) records that could be used to

15

gratify private spite or promote public scandal; (2) records containing libelous statements; and (3)

16

records that contain business information that could be used to harm a litigant’s competitive

17

standing. Id.

18

The court has determined that certain sensitive and private information about P.A. should

19

be sealed. ECF No. 31 at 5-6 (finding that the public’s interest in the disclosure of P.A.’s

20

personal identifying information, medical and psychiatric records, and behavioral history is

21

outweighed by P.A.’s interest in maintaining the privacy of such). The parties have since sought

22

to file under seal: (1) petitioner’s reply brief in support of the petition; (2) all exhibits in support

23

of petitioner’s reply brief in support of the petition; (3) petitioner’s motion to exclude evidence;

24

(4) petitioner’s proposed sur-sur-reply brief; (5) petitioner’s reply brief in support of the motion

25
1

26
27
28

The court may seal materials attached to discovery motions unrelated to the merits of a
case on a lesser showing than “compelling reasons”; in such a situation, a showing of “good
cause” suffices. Id. at 1097. As the court concludes that the instant request to seal meets the
higher compelling reasons standard, it need not determine whether the motion to exclude
evidence qualifies as a discovery motion unrelated to the merits of this case.
2

1

to exclude evidence; and (6) exhibits B and C in support of respondents’ opposition to the motion

2

for a temporary restraining order. In addition, in response to the court’s prior order on sealing,

3

respondents have submitted a redacted version of their response to the petition and proposed

4

redactions to response exhibits A, D, E, L, N, Q, R, S, V, W, and X. Petitioner has filed an

5

opposition to those proposed redactions, arguing that they are insufficient to protect P.A.’s

6

sensitive information.

7

The filings listed above contain some sensitive and private information about P.A. For

8

that reason, unredacted versions of these documents must be filed under seal. However, the court

9

finds that the documents may be redacted in such a way as to protect P.A.’s personal information

10

but also provide some public record of those documents. Accordingly, the court grants the

11

parties’ requests to seal the unredacted versions of these documents and orders that redacted

12

versions be filed. The parties shall, within 14 days of the entry of this order, file appropriately

13

redacted versions of these documents sufficient to protect P.A.’s personal information.

14
15

So ordered.
DATED: January 26, 2017.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3