ORDER

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR., Senior District Judge.

On July 12, 2018, Defendant Jodene Watt filed on the public docket a "Notice to Seal Document" in which she states she "hereby gives notice that she has submitted to the Court a three-page Defendant's Supplemental Sentencing Memorandum, a copy of which has also been submitted to counsel for the United States, and requested such document be sealed." However, on July 12, 2018 Watt emailed to chambers for in camera consideration of her sealing request, in addition to the referenced document, two additional documents she desires to file under seal: REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENT and [PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENT." The referenced REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENT is a sealing memorandum comprising approximately eight pages. The referenced [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENT files under seal each of the three documents.

Defendant's in camera submittals do not make pellucid the standard applicable to her sentencing goal, and therefore it is unclear precisely what Defendant seeks to accomplish in secrecy. Therefore, Defendant's sealing request is denied, and the documents Defendant emailed to chambers are deemed returned to her so that she can decide what to do in light of this ruling. See E.D. Cal. R. 141(e)(1) (prescribing that if a sealing "[r]equest is denied in full or in part, the Clerk will return to the submitting party the documents for which sealing has been denied"); United States v. Big Leggins, 375 F. App'x 692, 693 (9th Cir. 2010) (indicating that the district court had authority to issue the directive that defendant "could either withdraw the report or resubmit it in redacted form") redacted form"); United States v. Baez-Alcaino, 718 F.Supp. 1503, 1507 (M.D. Fla. 1989) (remarking that after denying asealing request a judge may "return[] [the documents] to the submitting party," who may then decide how to proceed).