United States of America v. Hiramanek

Filing 35

ORDER DENYING 26 , 28 RESPONDENT'S MOTIONS TO SEAL DOCUMENTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 7/26/2017. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

ADIL HIRAMANEK,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-03392-BLF
ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S
MOTIONS TO SEAL DOCUMENTS,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
[Re: ECF 26, 28]

12
13

Before the Court is Respondent Adil Hiramanek (“Respondent”)’s motions to file under

14

seal various documents in this case. Respondent has filed two motions: (1) “Respondent’s Rule

15

5.2, Civil L.R. 7-11, 79-5, Administrative Motion to Seal Documents,” ECF 26, and (2) “Ex Parte

16

Emergency, Expedited & Supplemental Administrative Motion To Seal Certain Documents With

17

An Order That Petitioner Shall File Respondent & Third Parties Private Information Under Seal,”

18

ECF 28. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Respondent’s motions without

19

prejudice.

20
21

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” to judicial records. Kamakana v. City &

22

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

23

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). A party seeking to seal judicial records bears the

24

burden of overcoming this presumption by articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific

25

factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring

26

disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79. Compelling reasons for sealing court files generally exist when such

27

“‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to

28

gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade

1

secrets.” Id. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). However,

2

“[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment,

3

incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its

4

records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Ultimately, “[w]hat constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is

5

‘best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrslyer Grp., LLC,

6

809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016).
“Despite this strong preference for public access, [the Ninth Circuit has] carved out an

7
8

exception,” id. at 1097, for judicial records attached to motions that are “tangentially related to the

9

merits of a case,” id. at 1101. Parties moving to seal such records need only make a
“particularized showing” under the “good cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138).
In this District, parties seeking to seal judicial records must furthermore follow Civil Local

12
13

Rule 79-5, which requires, inter alia, that a sealing request be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing

14

only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b) (emphasis added).

15
16

III.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed Respondent’s sealing motions and declarations in support thereof.

17

Respondent requests that the Court seal this entire case and its related case United States v.

18

Hiramanek, 5:17-cv-03389 (N.D. Cal. filed June 12, 2017). ECF 26. Respondent does not argue

19

or establish compelling reasons for the Court to seal these cases entirely. In the alternative,

20

Respondent requests that the Court seal documents listed “under ¶2” of his administrative motion

21

to seal documents. Id. The documents Respondent seeks to seal include the underlying petition

22

(ECF 1), certificate of service (ECF 16), the order to show cause (ECF 21), and Respondent’s

23

motion to dismiss, inclusive of all declarations and exhibits (ECF 23). ECF 26. Respondent also

24

requests to seal Petitioner’s opposition to the motion to dismiss (ECF 27). ECF 28. These

25

documents are related to the merits of the case, and must be resolved under the compelling reasons

26

standard. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101-2 (holding that “public access will turn on

27

whether the motion is more than tangentially related to the merits of a case”).

28

Respondent’s requests are not narrowly tailored to sealable material. Although
2

1

Respondent lists the “kind of information contained in the questioned document(s)” and

2

summarizes the documents into “high level categories” that may constitute compelling reasons to

3

seal, he does not tailor his requests to sealable information but rather requests the Court to seal all

4

information, including legal arguments, contained in the identified documents. ECF 26.

5

Respondent’s request is overbroad and does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard or comply

6

with Civil Local Rule 79-5(b). Respondent’s sealing motions are DENIED WITHOUT

7

PREJUDICE. No later than 7 days from the filing of this order, Respondent may renew his motion

8

so as to more narrowly tailor his request to seal. If Respondent does not renew his motion, he

9

must file the unredacted documents into the public record. Alternatively, Respondent may

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

withdraw the documents he filed in this case.
Moreover, there is no authority for Respondent’s request that the Court seal “Petitioner’s

12

future filings that contain any private information of the kind listed under section ¶1.” ECF 28.

13

Such a request is premature. If Petitioner files sealable information in this case, Respondent may

14

file a narrowly tailored motion to seal such information.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19
20

Dated: July 26, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3