Filed: Dec. 02, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 02, 2016
Summary: ORDER DENYING THE GOVERNMENT'S SEALING REQUEST GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , Senior District Judge . The government seeks an order authorizing the sealing of documents described and/or referenced in the "GOVERNMENT'S NOTICE OF REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS" filed on November 18, 2016. Further, the government seeks an order sealing all findings justifying sealing, contending this is necessary to protect the compelling interest in confidentiality at stake. The government argues: "In its Request to Se
Summary: ORDER DENYING THE GOVERNMENT'S SEALING REQUEST GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , Senior District Judge . The government seeks an order authorizing the sealing of documents described and/or referenced in the "GOVERNMENT'S NOTICE OF REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS" filed on November 18, 2016. Further, the government seeks an order sealing all findings justifying sealing, contending this is necessary to protect the compelling interest in confidentiality at stake. The government argues: "In its Request to Sea..
More
ORDER DENYING THE GOVERNMENT'S SEALING REQUEST
GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge.
The government seeks an order authorizing the sealing of documents described and/or referenced in the "GOVERNMENT'S NOTICE OF REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS" filed on November 18, 2016. Further, the government seeks an order sealing all findings justifying sealing, contending this is necessary to protect the compelling interest in confidentiality at stake. The government argues: "In its Request to Seal Documents, the government has articulated what it believes is a particularized and compelling interest justifying nondisclosure of the aforementioned documents." Notice, 2:1-2, ECF 49.
The government also submitted via email to chambers for in camera consideration a "Request to Seal Documents" which contains considerable argument, the practices of judges in other districts, and specific factual information concerning the secrecy it seeks. "It is the burden of the party seeking closure. . . to demonstrate that available alternatives [to the sought after closure] will not protect [the interests at stake]." Oregonian Pub. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Oregon, 920 F.2d 1462, 1467 (9th Cir. 1990).
Since this burden has not been satisfied, the documents submitted to chambers via email for camera review are treated as having been returned to the government so it can decide how to proceed in light of this ruling. See generally E.D. Cal. L.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 Fed.Appx. 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"); United States v. Baez-Alcaino, 718 F.Supp. 1503, 1507 (M.D. Fla. 1989) (indicating that when a judge denies a sealing request the party submitting the request then decides how to proceed in light of the ruling).
