MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge.
Pursuant to Local Rule 141, undersigned counsel is requesting that Exhibits R through U be filed under seal. The exhibits cell phone records of the victim (Exhibit R) and cell phone records of the "trick flip phone" (Exhibits S, T and U) that show the victim's mother's phone number, her grandmother's phone number, as well as other phone numbers of the victim's family and friends. I received each of these exhibits in discovery from the government. I have provided Exhibits R, S, T and U to the government in preparation for this sentencing hearing. Onn January 29, 2017, I exchanged emails with AUSA Beckwith about the issue of whether or not to file the four exhibits under seal. AUSA Beckwith indicated that the government would prefer that the exhibits be filed under seal due to the personal identifying information contained in the phone records. Thus, to protect the privacy rights of the victim and other persons, the defense requests permission to file the exhibits under seal. The records would then be available to the appellate courts if any review of the sentencing were necessary. The court has discretion to weigh the need for secrecy against the public's right to access. In re National Broadcasting Company, 653 F.2d 609, 613 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
Pursuant to Local Rule 141(b) and based upon the representation contained in Defendant's Request to Seal, it is hereby ordered that exhibits R, S, T and U shall be SEALED until further order of this Court. It is further ordered that access to the sealed documents shall be limited to the government and counsel for the defendant.
The Court has considered the factors set forth in Oregonian Publishing Co. v. U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, 920 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1990). The Court finds that, for the reasons stated in Defendant's request, sealing the exhibits serves a compelling interest. The Court further finds that, in the absence of closure, the compelling interests identified by the Defendant would be harmed. In light of the public filing of its request to seal, the Court further finds that there are no additional alternatives to sealing Exhibits R, S, T and U that would adequately protect the compelling interests identified by the Defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.