Doe 1 v. McAleenan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION JANE DOE 1, et al., Case No. 18-cv-02349-BLF Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND v. DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED REDACTIONS TO THE ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, et al., COURT’S MARCH 15, 2021 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING Defendants. IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [Re: ECF 437, 438] The Court has received the parties’ proposed stipulations (ECF 438) regarding redactions to this Court’s March 15, 2021 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, which was filed under seal. See Order, ECF 433. Exhibit B at ECF 438-2 contains the redactions the parties agree on and additional proposed redactions from the Government. See Ex. B, ECF 438-2. The parties also seek to seal the materials they submitted to this Court to resolve this dispute (ECF 437). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the redactions proposed in Exhibit B.

I. LEGAL STANDARD “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 25 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978)). Consequently, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. Sealing motions filed in this district also must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

II. DISCUSSION The Court finds that the compelling reasons standard applies to these redactions and has compared the proposed redactions with the Court’s prior sealing orders in this case. See ECF 401, 420, 421, 422. The Court’s rulings on the sealing request is set forth in the table below.

ECF No. Document Result Reasoning Ex. B, Motion to DENIED as to the portion at: This information was 438-2 Dismiss previously publicly in (Defendants’ 4:16-17 (“and issued a SAO Plaintiff’s First Amended Proposed “not clear” result, labeling Complaint ¶¶ 5, 64 ECF Redactions) the case a security threat, 383-4, consistent with the whenever it found”) Court’s order at ECF 401.

4:28 (footnote 3) Ex. B, Motion to GRANTED as to the The Court finds this 438-2 Dismiss remaining highlighted information sealable for the (Defendants’ portions. reasons articulated in ECF Proposed 401.

Redactions) Ex. B, Motion to See result for ECF 438-2. This document is identical 437-4 Dismiss to ECF 438-2 and the (Defendants’ Court’s decision is Proposed identical.

Redactions) Ex. A, Motion to GRANTED as to the The Court finds this 438-1 Dismiss (Plaintiffs’ highlighted portions. information sealable for the Proposed reasons articulated in ECF Redactions) 401.

Ex. A, Motion to See result for 438-1. This document is identical 437-3 Dismiss (Plaintiffs’ to ECF 438-1 and the Proposed Court’s decision is Redactions) identical.

III. ORDER 1 For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part || Defendants’ motion to file under seal portions of Exhibit B. The Court further directs the Defendants to separately file the redacted version of the order, consistent with this Court’s ruling.

5 || Dated: March 30, 2021 kom Lh ham tn) BETH LABSON FREEMAN 7 United States District Judge

©

= 17 Z 18