Filed: Oct. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 18, 2018
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Dkt. 22] LARRY ALAN BURNS , District Judge . This Court previously denied Respondent Veronica Golub's motion to file under seal certain documents in support of her motion to vacate, and ordered the clerk to unseal those documents. Dkt. 16. Petitioner BofI has asked the Court to reconsider only one provision in the lodged materials, which it argues is protected from disclosure under federal law. Dkt. 22. A district court has the inherent power to r
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Dkt. 22] LARRY ALAN BURNS , District Judge . This Court previously denied Respondent Veronica Golub's motion to file under seal certain documents in support of her motion to vacate, and ordered the clerk to unseal those documents. Dkt. 16. Petitioner BofI has asked the Court to reconsider only one provision in the lodged materials, which it argues is protected from disclosure under federal law. Dkt. 22. A district court has the inherent power to re..
More
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Dkt. 22]
LARRY ALAN BURNS, District Judge.
This Court previously denied Respondent Veronica Golub's motion to file under seal certain documents in support of her motion to vacate, and ordered the clerk to unseal those documents. Dkt. 16. Petitioner BofI has asked the Court to reconsider only one provision in the lodged materials, which it argues is protected from disclosure under federal law. Dkt. 22.
A district court has the inherent power to reconsider and modify its interlocutory orders prior to the entry of judgment. . . ." Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 U.S. 462, 475 (2005). "Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,1263 (9th Cir. 1993).
The parties initially argued that the various documents lodged in Dkt. 13 should be filed under seal because they contained confidential information related to the Bank Secrecy Act. The Court's order on July 17, 2018 found that mere confidentiality was not a "compelling reason" to seal documents, and ordered the various documents lodged under seal in Dkt. 13 be unsealed. The Court was not told at that time, however, that Item 15 on Page 83 of the lodged materials contained a reference to a Suspicious Activity Report ("SAR")1. An SAR is a procedure by which a bank reports a suspected violation of federal law (such as money laundering) to the government, and disclosure even of the existence of an SAR in public is forbidden by law. 12 C.F.R. 21.11(k). The Court therefore erred in unsealing that discrete portion of the lodged materials.
BofI's motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The clerk is ordered to re-seal Exhibit 4 only (Dkt. 13-2). BofI shall refile a public version of Exhibit 4 with only Item 15 on Page 83 (or the equivalent location if the pagination changes) redacted within one week of entry of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
