Eubanks v. Johnson

Filing 51

ORDER Granting Respondent's Renewed Application for Leave to Lodge Records Under Seal [ECF No. 45 ]. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 7/29/2020. (anh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

SUSAN DIANNE EUBANKS,

Case No.: 17cv0016 BEN (MDD)
Petitioner,

DEATH PENALTY CASE

v.
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S
RENEWED APPLICATION FOR
LEAVE TO LODGE RECORDS
UNDER SEAL [ECF No. 45]

JANEL ESPINOZA, Warden of Central
California Women’s Facility at
Chowchilla,
Respondent.

18
19

Pending before the Court is Respondent’s Renewed Application for Leave to Lodge

20

Records Under Seal, filed November 14, 2019, accompanied by a declaration of counsel

21

and exhibits to the declaration. (ECF No. 45.) In an order dated November 5, 2019, the

22

Court denied Respondent’s prior application for leave to lodge records under seal, noting

23

that the description of the materials and accompanying reasons for sealing in state court

24

appeared inaccurate and that “aside from stating that the documents are under seal in state

25

court, Respondent fails to offer argument or authority demonstrating why these materials

26

should be lodged under seal in this Court.” (ECF No. 44 at 2.)

27

In a declaration which accompanies the Renewed Application, Respondent now

28

clarifies that “Volume 53 of the Clerk’s Transcript is sealed pursuant to California Penal
2
17cv0016

1

Code § 987.9, which provides that funding requests by indigent defendants in capital cases

2

shall remain confidential,” and that “Volumes 9, 13, 30A, and 36A of the Reporter’s

3

Transcript concern ex parte in camera proceedings regarding defense trial strategy and

4

other matters,” and “these volumes were sealed by the trial court.” (ECF No. 45 at 5.)

5

Upon review of the exhibits to the declaration (see id. at 6-15) in conjunction with the

6

proposed sealed lodgment (ECF No. 39), Respondent’s description of the materials and

7

stated reasons for sealing in the state court now appears accurate.

8

Respondent notes that “[a]lthough respondent has been granted access to the

9

transcripts discussed above, the transcripts remain under seal,” and explains that

10

“Respondent seeks to lodge these transcripts under seal because respondent wishes to fulfill

11

her duty under CivLR HC.3.h.1 to provide available transcripts of the state trial court

12

proceedings to this Court, but must also comply with state law governing sealed records.”

13

(ECF No. 45 at 2-3.) Respondent also points out that “[d]istrict courts have allowed section

14

987.9 materials to be lodged under seal” and “[d]istrict courts have also lodged under seal

15

reporter’s transcripts of confidential in camera proceedings in the trial court.” (Id. at 3,

16

citing Sanchez v. Chappell, 2015 WL 4496379, at *157 (E.D. Cal. July 23, 2015), Page v.

17

Miller, 2015 WL 1931739, at *16 n. 9 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2015), Ragsdale v. Paramo, 2014

18

WL 1766951, at *6 n. 7 (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2014), Ekene v. Cash, 2012 WL 4711723, at *4

19

(C.D. Cal. May 14, 2012.).) Respondent also states that counsel for Petitioner “indicated

20

that she had no objection to Respondent’s application to lodge these records under seal.”

21

(Id. at 5.)

22

“It is clear that the courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and

23

copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v.

24

Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (footnotes omitted). “It is

25

uncontested, however, that the right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute.

26

Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and access has been

27

denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes.” Id.; see also

28

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).
2
17cv0016

1

Given that other district courts have lodged under seal the very type of documents at

2

issue here, the confidential and privileged nature of the records involved, and the fact that

3

these records remain under seal in state court, the Court concludes there exist compelling

4

reasons to exercise its discretion and inherent authority to similarly lodge these materials

5

under seal. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Accordingly, Respondent’s Renewed

6

Application for Leave to Lodge Records Under Seal [ECF No. 45] is GRANTED. The

7

Clerk is DIRECTED to lodge the proposed document [ECF No. 39] UNDER SEAL.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated: July 29, 2020

10
11

______________________________
Hon. Roger T. Benitez
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
17cv0016