(HC) Doe v. Andrews

1 KAcIMtinBgE URnLitYed A S. tSaAteNs ACHttoErZne y MICHELLE RODRIGUEZ Assistant United States Attorney 501 I Street, Suite 10-100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 554-2700 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOHN DOE, CASE NO. 1:25-CV-00680-KES-SKO 10 Petitioner, ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS AS SET FORTH 11 v. IN RESPONDENTS NOTICE U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL BONDI, ET AL., 13 Respondents.

17 Pursuant to Local Rule 141(b), and based on the representations contained in the Respondents Request to Seal, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Romero Declaration Exhibits (ECF 10-1) in Support of Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss, pertaining to Doe, and the Respondents’ Request to Seal shall be SEALED until further order of this Court.

21 It is further ordered that electronic access to the sealed documents shall be limited to the Respondents and counsel for the Petitioner.

23 The Court has considered the factors set forth in Oregonian Publishing Co. v. U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, 920 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1990). The Court finds that, for the reasons stated in the Respondents’ Request, sealing the Respondents’ Request and the Romero Declaration Exhibits (ECF 10-1) in Support of Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss serves a compelling interest.

27 The Court further finds that, in the absence of closure, the compelling interests identified by the Respondents would be harmed. In light of the public filing of its Notice to Seal, the Court further finds that there are no additional alternatives to sealing the Respondents’ Request and Romero Declaration Exhibits (ECF 10-1) in Support of Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss that would adequately protect the compelling interests identified by the Respondents.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 Dated: July 21, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE