Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

MACK v. COPENHAVER, 1:14-cv-00614-LJO-SKO-HC. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140807670 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jul. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 24, 2014
Summary: ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL (DOC. 16) SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge. Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 303. Pending before the Court is the Respondent's motion to seal a probation services investigation report pursuant to Local Rule 141
More

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL (DOC. 16)

SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 303. Pending before the Court is the Respondent's motion to seal a probation services investigation report pursuant to Local Rule 141, which was filed on July 21, 2014.

The court has the authority to exercise its discretion to seal documents and set appropriate limits upon access to records and files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Local Rule 141(a); Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978); Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1433-1434 (9th Cir. 1995). In determining whether to seal documents, the Court should consider the interests advanced by the parties in light of the public interest and the duty of the courts. Nixon, 435 U.S. at 602; Hagestand, 49 F.3d at 1434. The Ninth Circuit has adopted the Seventh Circuit's approach for determining whether the common law right of access should be overridden, requiring courts to start with a strong presumption in favor of access that may be overcome only on the basis of articulable facts known to the court, as distinct from unsupported hypothesis or conjecture. Hagestand, 49 F.3d at 1434.

Here, Respondent seeks to file under seal a presentence investigation report (PSR) that was prepared in connection with Petitioner's commitment offense or offenses. Pursuant to Local Rule 460(a), such a report is a confidential record of the United States District Court. Accordingly, Respondent's motion to file the report under seal will be granted.

Pursuant to Local Rule 141(a), the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file the presentence investigation report and addenda, prepared for sentencing date March 19, 1991, which constitute exhibit 3 to Respondent's motion to dismiss filed on July 21, 2014, and were submitted to the Clerk of the Court on the same date under separate sealed cover, UNDER SEAL. Pending further order of the Court, this document is to remain sealed and confidential and is not to become part of the public case file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer