1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 JANE DOE 1, et al., Case No. 18-cv-02349-BLF

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 9 v. DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED REDACTIONS TO THE 10 ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, et al., COURT’S MARCH 15, 2021 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING 11 Defendants. IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS 12 [Re: ECF 437, 438] 13 The Court has received the parties’ proposed stipulations (ECF 438) regarding redactions 14 to this Court’s March 15, 2021 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to 15 Dismiss, which was filed under seal. See Order, ECF 433. Exhibit B at ECF 438-2 contains the 16 redactions the parties agree on and additional proposed redactions from the Government. See Ex. 17 B, ECF 438-2. The parties also seek to seal the materials they submitted to this Court to resolve 18 this dispute (ECF 437). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in 19 part the redactions proposed in Exhibit B. 20

21 I. LEGAL STANDARD 22 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 23 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and County of 24 Honolulu,

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

, 597 n.7 (1978)). Consequently, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the 26 merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. 27 for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

(9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are 1 only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.”

2 at 1097. Sealing motions filed in this district also must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only 3 of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). 4 5 II. DISCUSSION 6 The Court finds that the compelling reasons standard applies to these redactions and has 7 compared the proposed redactions with the Court’s prior sealing orders in this case. See ECF 8 401, 420, 421, 422. The Court’s rulings on the sealing request is set forth in the table below. 9 ECF No. Document Result Reasoning 10 Ex. B, Motion to DENIED as to the portion at: This information was 438-2 11 Dismiss previously publicly in (Defendants’ 4:16-17 (“and issued a SAO Plaintiff’s First Amended 12 Proposed “not clear” result, labeling Complaint ¶¶ 5, 64 ECF Redactions) the case a security threat, 383-4, consistent with the 13 whenever it found”) Court’s order at ECF 401.

14 4:28 (footnote 3) 15 Ex. B, Motion to GRANTED as to the The Court finds this 16 438-2 Dismiss remaining highlighted information sealable for the (Defendants’ portions. reasons articulated in ECF 17 Proposed 401. Redactions) 18 Ex. B, Motion to See result for ECF 438-2. This document is identical 437-4 19 Dismiss to ECF 438-2 and the (Defendants’ Court’s decision is 20 Proposed identical. Redactions) 21 Ex. A, Motion to GRANTED as to the The Court finds this 438-1 22 Dismiss (Plaintiffs’ highlighted portions. information sealable for the Proposed reasons articulated in ECF 23 Redactions) 401. Ex. A, Motion to See result for 438-1. This document is identical 24 437-3 Dismiss (Plaintiffs’ to ECF 438-1 and the Proposed Court’s decision is 25 Redactions) identical. 26

27 III. ORDER 1 For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part 2 || Defendants’ motion to file under seal portions of Exhibit B. The Court further directs the 3 Defendants to separately file the redacted version of the order, consistent with this Court’s ruling. 4 5 || Dated: March 30, 2021 kom Lh ham tn) 6 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28