Filed: Jan. 21, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 21, 2020
Summary: ORDER DEBRA M. BROWN , District Judge . On January 16, 2020, the government filed a motion seeking to seal (1) its previously filed response to the defendant's motion to suppress; (2) exhibits to the response; (3) the motion to seal itself; and (4) the order disposing of the motion to seal. Doc. #40. As grounds, the government represents: In filing its response, the government inadvertently failed to redact the defendant's PII from one of the exhibits. The government understands from ta
Summary: ORDER DEBRA M. BROWN , District Judge . On January 16, 2020, the government filed a motion seeking to seal (1) its previously filed response to the defendant's motion to suppress; (2) exhibits to the response; (3) the motion to seal itself; and (4) the order disposing of the motion to seal. Doc. #40. As grounds, the government represents: In filing its response, the government inadvertently failed to redact the defendant's PII from one of the exhibits. The government understands from tal..
More
ORDER
DEBRA M. BROWN, District Judge.
On January 16, 2020, the government filed a motion seeking to seal (1) its previously filed response to the defendant's motion to suppress; (2) exhibits to the response; (3) the motion to seal itself; and (4) the order disposing of the motion to seal. Doc. #40. As grounds, the government represents:
In filing its response, the government inadvertently failed to redact the defendant's PII from one of the exhibits. The government understands from talking to the Clerk's Office that the government cannot retract a filed document and substitute a redacted copy. The only way to correct the issue and protect the defendant's PII from public disclosure is to file a motion to seal the government's response.
Id. at 1 (emphasis added).
Ordinarily, to seal documents related to a search in a criminal action, a movant must show that "sealing is (a) essential to preserve higher values and (b) narrowly tailored to preserve that interest, after consideration of less restrictive alternatives. Redaction is among the less restrictive alternatives that must be considered." In re Sealing & Non-Disclosure of Pen/Trade/2703(d) Orders, 562 F.Supp.2d 876, 895 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (citation omitted).
Here, the government seeks to seal numerous documents based on personally identifiable information in only one exhibit but fails to specify which exhibit that is.1 The Court presumes the government seeks to seal Exhibit 5—a written statement prepared by the defendant—since Exhibit 5 appears to be the only document containing the defendant's personally identifiable information. While protecting personally identifiable information is undoubtedly important, the remedy sought by the government far exceeds what is necessary to protect the defendant's interest in his personally identifiable information. Rather, such interest may be, and should be, served by redaction. Accordingly, the motion to seal [40] is DENIED. The government is DIRECTED to file a redacted version of Exhibit 5 on or before January 24, 2020. In the meanwhile, the Clerk of the Court shall restrict from public access Exhibit 5 [39-5].
SO ORDERED.
