U.S. v. WARREN, 2:10-cr-00424-WBS. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20151119c20
Visitors: 9
Filed: Nov. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 18, 2015
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . Defendant's motion that the transcript of the sentencing hearing which occurred on February 27, 2012, (docket at entries 102 and 122, Exhibit E) be sealed is DENIED without prejudice. As defendant acknowledges, the public's right to know the contents of documents filed with the court can be overcome only if "(1) closure serves a compelling interest; (2) there is interest would be harmed; and (3) there are no alternatives to closure that would adequa
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . Defendant's motion that the transcript of the sentencing hearing which occurred on February 27, 2012, (docket at entries 102 and 122, Exhibit E) be sealed is DENIED without prejudice. As defendant acknowledges, the public's right to know the contents of documents filed with the court can be overcome only if "(1) closure serves a compelling interest; (2) there is interest would be harmed; and (3) there are no alternatives to closure that would adequat..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
Defendant's motion that the transcript of the sentencing hearing which occurred on February 27, 2012, (docket at entries 102 and 122, Exhibit E) be sealed is DENIED without prejudice. As defendant acknowledges, the public's right to know the contents of documents filed with the court can be overcome only if "(1) closure serves a compelling interest; (2) there is interest would be harmed; and (3) there are no alternatives to closure that would adequately protect the compelling interest." See In re: Copley Press, Inc., 518 F.3d 1022, 1028 (9th Cir. 2008). The court cannot simply assume that every single defendant who cooperates with the government in any way runs a substantial risk of being injured in prison. Moreover, there are several alternatives to complete closure of the documents by way of sealing, such as redacting portions of the documents. Defendant has therefore not made a sufficient showing to justify granting the motion.
Source: Leagle
