U.S. v. Hickles, CR18-0015-JCC. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20180821g27
Visitors: 14
Filed: Aug. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 20, 2018
Summary: ORDER JOHN C. COUGHENOUR , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Jermaine Hickle's unopposed motion to seal (Dkt. No. 32) his sentencing memorandum and supplemental filings (Dkt. Nos. 33, 33-1, 33-2, 33-3, 33-4). The Court starts from the position that "[t]here is a strong presumption of public access to [its] files." W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 5(g). To overcome this presumption, there must be a "compelling reason" for sealing sufficient to outweigh the public's in
Summary: ORDER JOHN C. COUGHENOUR , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Jermaine Hickle's unopposed motion to seal (Dkt. No. 32) his sentencing memorandum and supplemental filings (Dkt. Nos. 33, 33-1, 33-2, 33-3, 33-4). The Court starts from the position that "[t]here is a strong presumption of public access to [its] files." W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 5(g). To overcome this presumption, there must be a "compelling reason" for sealing sufficient to outweigh the public's int..
More
ORDER
JOHN C. COUGHENOUR, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Jermaine Hickle's unopposed motion to seal (Dkt. No. 32) his sentencing memorandum and supplemental filings (Dkt. Nos. 33, 33-1, 33-2, 33-3, 33-4).
The Court starts from the position that "[t]here is a strong presumption of public access to [its] files." W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 5(g). To overcome this presumption, there must be a "compelling reason" for sealing sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in disclosure. Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1100 (9th Cir. 2016) (applying the "compelling reason" test to motions to seal documents "more than tangentially related to the merits of a case"). Defendant seeks to maintain under seal his sentencing memorandum and supporting documents. Information contained in these documents is highly personal and sensitive to Defendant, whereas the public has minimal interest in this information. On this basis, the Court finds there is a compelling reason to seal the documents that outweighs the public's interest in their disclosure.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion (Dkt. No. 32) is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to maintain Docket Numbers 33, 33-1, 33-2, 33-3, and 33-4 under seal.
Source: Leagle
