Filed: Feb. 14, 2017
Latest Update: Feb. 14, 2017
Summary: ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . This matter came before the Court on the Government's Request to Seal Documents, in which the Government has requested the Court seal the following documents, pursuant to Local Rule 141(b), until further order of the Court: Defendant's Motion for a New Trial 1. Defendant's entire Motion for a New Trial Under Rule 33 FRCP Based on Violations of the Duty to Disclose Under Brady v. Maryland, along with Defense Exhi
Summary: ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . This matter came before the Court on the Government's Request to Seal Documents, in which the Government has requested the Court seal the following documents, pursuant to Local Rule 141(b), until further order of the Court: Defendant's Motion for a New Trial 1. Defendant's entire Motion for a New Trial Under Rule 33 FRCP Based on Violations of the Duty to Disclose Under Brady v. Maryland, along with Defense Exhib..
More
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
This matter came before the Court on the Government's Request to Seal Documents, in which the Government has requested the Court seal the following documents, pursuant to Local Rule 141(b), until further order of the Court:
Defendant's Motion for a New Trial
1. Defendant's entire Motion for a New Trial Under Rule 33 FRCP Based on Violations of the Duty to Disclose Under Brady v. Maryland, along with Defense Exhibit Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 (pages 9-12 only), 7, 8, 10 through 17, 19 (but not including the August 16, 2016 letter from the Government), 21, 29 through 31, 34 through 37, and Paragraphs 2, 3, and 14 through 18 of Defense Exhibit 3, all of which were attached to Defendant's motion;
2. The Government's opposition to Defendant's New Trial Motion and Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and Gov't Exhibit No. 5 to the opposition, redacted versions of which have been filed on the public docket (ECF No. 237);
3. Defendant's entire reply to Government's opposition to Defendant's New Trial Motion and Motion for Judgment of Acquittal;
Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration
4. Pages 2:15-18, 6:23-26, 7:3-16, and footnote 1 on page 7 of Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of CIPA Protective Order and for Disclosure of Government's Supporting Documents, along with Paragraphs 2, 3, and 14 through 18 of Defense Exhibit 4, Defense Exhibit Nos. 5 (but not including the August 16, 2016 letter from the Government), and Defense Exhibit 6, all of which were attached to Defendant's motion;
5. The Government's opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's August 19, 2016 Order Under Rule 16, a redacted version of which has been filed on the public docket (ECF No. 236);
6. Pages 4:24-27 (fn. 1), 5:17-28, 6:1-3, 6:5-7, 6:13-15, 6:19-23, and 6:27-28 (fn. 2) of Defendant's reply to Government's opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's August 19, 2016 Order Under Rule 16;
Government's Request to Seal Documents
7. The Government's entire Request to Seal Documents, along with the exhibits attached thereto;
8. Defendant's entire opposition to the Government's Request to Seal Documents, along with the exhibits attached thereto;
9. The Government's reply to Defendant's opposition to the Government's Request to Seal Documents, a redacted version of which has been filed on the public docket (ECF No. 246); and
August 16 Documents
10. The "August 16 Documents" submitted pursuant to Court's Minute Order of January 23, 2017 (ECF No. 240).
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) and In re Copley Press, Inc., 518 F.3d 1022, 1028 (9th Cir. 2008). The Court held a hearing on the Government's request to seal on January 26, 2017. Having read and considered the papers submitted, the Defendant's opposition, the Government's reply, the arguments made at the hearing, and being fully informed, the Court GRANTS the Government's Request and FINDS as follows:
1. The Government has provided sufficient notice to those interested in the proceedings as to the nature and basis of the document to be sealed.
2. Protecting the safety of a confidential human source or informant qualifies as a compelling interest; accordingly, a particularized and compelling interest justifying nondisclosure of the aforementioned documents in this case.
3. Without the sealing of the aforementioned documents, or portions thereof, identified above, there is a substantial likelihood that a confidential human source or informant's safety will be endangered.
4. Anything less than sealing the aforementioned documents, or portions thereof, will identify a confidential human source or informant and thereby jeopardize the safety of the confidential human source or informant. As such, sealing the aforementioned documents is a narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling interest found herein.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following documents in the above-captioned case are to be SEALED until further order of this Court:
Defendant's Motion for a New Trial
1. Defendant's entire Motion for a New Trial Under Rule 33 FRCP Based on Violations of the Duty to Disclose Under Brady v. Maryland, along with Defense Exhibit Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 (pages 9-12 only), 7, 8, 10 through 17, 19 (but not including the August 16, 2016 letter from the Government), 21, 29 through 31, 34 through 37, and Paragraphs 2, 3, and 14 through 18 of Defense Exhibit 3, all of which were attached to Defendant's motion;
2. The Government's opposition to Defendant's New Trial Motion and Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and Gov't Exhibit No. 5 to the opposition, redacted versions of which have been filed on the public docket (ECF No. 237);
3. Defendant's entire reply to Government's opposition to Defendant's New Trial Motion and Motion for Judgment of Acquittal;
Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration
4. Pages 2:15-18, 6:23-26, 7:3-16, and footnote 1 on page 7 of Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of CIPA Protective Order and for Disclosure of Government's Supporting Documents, along with Paragraphs 2, 3, and 14 through 18 of Defense Exhibit 4, Defense Exhibit Nos. 5 (but not including the August 16, 2016 letter from the Government), and Defense Exhibit 6, all of which were attached to Defendant's motion;
5. The Government's opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's August 19, 2016 Order Under Rule 16, a redacted version of which has been filed on the public docket (ECF No. 236);
6. Pages 4:24-27 (fn. 1), 5:17-28, 6:1-3, 6:5-7, 6:13-15, 6:19-23, and 6:27-28 (fn. 2) of Defendant's reply to Government's opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's August 19, 2016 Order Under Rule 16;
Government's Request to Seal Documents
7. The Government's entire Request to Seal Documents, along with the exhibits attached thereto;
8. Defendant's entire opposition to the Government's Request to Seal Documents, along with the exhibits attached thereto;
9. The Government's reply to Defendant's opposition to the Government's Request to Seal Documents, a redacted version of which has been filed on the public docket (ECF No. 246); and
August 16 Documents
10. The "August 16 Documents" submitted pursuant to Court's Minute Order of January 23, 2017 (ECF No. 240).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court will file this Order on the Court's public docket for this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
