USA v. Pierson, 2:16-CR-0106 KJM. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20171227771
Visitors: 4
Filed: Dec. 13, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 13, 2017
Summary: [PROPOSED] ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS AS SET FORTH IN GOVERNMENT'S NOTICE KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , 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 six-page document pertaining to defendant Pamela Dawn Pierson, 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 gover
Summary: [PROPOSED] ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS AS SET FORTH IN GOVERNMENT'S NOTICE KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , 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 six-page document pertaining to defendant Pamela Dawn Pierson, 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 govern..
More
[PROPOSED] ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS AS SET FORTH IN GOVERNMENT'S NOTICE
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, 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 six-page document pertaining to defendant Pamela Dawn Pierson, 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 Pamela Dawn Pierson.
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 four-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
