Campbell v. United States of America

Filing 22

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Government's 17 Motion to Seal; directing the Clerk to maintain Dkts 18 and 18 -2 under seal and unseal Dkt. 18 -1. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour. (SWT) (cc: Petitioner via USPS)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

KEVIN CAMPBELL,

10
11
12

CASE NO. C18-0274-JCC
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

13

Respondent.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on the Government’s motion to seal exhibits (Dkt.

16

No. 17). The Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion (Dkt. No. 17) for

17

the reasons explained herein.

18

The Court starts from the position that “[t]here is a strong presumption of public access to

19

[its] files.” W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 5(g). This presumption applies particularly to “dispositive

20

pleadings.” Kamakana v. City and Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). To

21

overcome this presumption, there must be a “compelling reason” for sealing that is “sufficient to

22

outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure.” Id. The Government seeks to maintain three

23

exhibits to its response to Petitioner’s § 2255 motion under seal: (1) the Probation Office’s

24

presentence investigation report in the underlying criminal case; (2) the Probation Office’s

25

proposed judgment in the underlying criminal case; and (3) email correspondence between the

26

Government and Petitioner’s counsel about the Probation Office’s recommendation. (Dkt. No.
ORDER
C18-0274-JCC
PAGE - 1

1
2

18.)
The presentence investigation report (Dkt. No. 18) contains sensitive and confidential

3

information that is already filed under seal. See Campbell v. United States, Case No. CR17-0025-

4

JCC, Dkt. No. 21 (W.D. Wash. 2017). The email correspondence (Dkt. No. 18-2) contains

5

private identifying information of attorneys and probation officers. There is compelling reason to

6

maintain those two documents under seal. However, the proposed judgment (Dkt. No. 18-1) does

7

not contain sensitive and confidential information—it largely reflects the unsealed judgment in

8

the underlying criminal case. See Campbell, Case No. CR17-0025-JCC, Dkt. No. 39. The

9

public’s interest in that document outweighs any other interest in keeping the document

10
11

confidential.
Therefore, the Government’s motion to seal (Dkt. No. 17) is GRANTED in part and

12

DENIED in part. The Clerk is DIRECTED to maintain Docket Numbers 18 and 18-2 under seal.

13

The Clerk is further DIRECTED to unseal Docket Number 18-1.

14

DATED this 20th day of June 2019.

A

15
16
17

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
C18-0274-JCC
PAGE - 2