U.S. v. Renteria, 2:11-CR-0296 JAM. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180622836
Visitors: 3
Filed: Jun. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 11, 2018
Summary: ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS AS SET FORTH IN GOVERNMENT'S NOTICE JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . Pursuant to Local Rule 141(b) and based upon the representation contained in the United States' Request to Seal, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the seven-page document pertaining to defendant Christian Parada, and the United States' Request to Seal 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
Summary: ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS AS SET FORTH IN GOVERNMENT'S NOTICE JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . Pursuant to Local Rule 141(b) and based upon the representation contained in the United States' Request to Seal, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the seven-page document pertaining to defendant Christian Parada, and the United States' Request to Seal 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 f..
More
ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS AS SET FORTH IN GOVERNMENT'S NOTICE
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
Pursuant to Local Rule 141(b) and based upon the representation contained in the United States' Request to Seal, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the seven-page document pertaining to defendant Christian Parada, and the United States' Request to Seal 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 defendant Christian Parada Renteria.
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 the Government's request, sealing the seven-page document serves a compelling interest. The Court further finds that, in the absence of closure, the compelling interests identified by the United States 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 the United States' memorandum that would adequately protect the compelling interests identified by the United States.
Source: Leagle
