Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00863/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00863-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 05:551 Administrative Procedure Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANDY YESSENIA SANCHEZ RIVAS, 

et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

UR JADDOU, Director, United States

Citizenship and Immigration Services,

Defendant.

No. 1:23-cv-00863-ADA-BAM

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO SEAL 

DOCUMENTS

(ECF No. 14)

Before the Court is the request of Defendant Ur Jaddou, Director, United States Citizenship 

and Immigration Services to file under seal its Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) pursuant to Local 

Rule 141. (ECF No. 14.) Upon review of the Motion and Plaintiffs’ response, the Court denies the 

request for the reasons stated below. 

I. Background

On June 6, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint alleging unreasonable delay in the adjudication 

of their U Visas. The Complaint contains the names of each Plaintiff, their countries of origin, and 

the locations where they currently reside. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint also contains sensitive 

information regarding Plaintiffs’ U Visa petitions, including the nature of the crime(s) against 

Plaintiffs, the dates of those crimes, and the status of Plaintiffs’ U Visa petitions. (Id.) On October 

Case 1:23-cv-00863-KES-BAM Document 18 Filed 10/13/23 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

3, 2023, Defendant filed a notice of request to seal its Motion. (ECF No. 14.) In an email to the 

Court, Defendant indicated that Plaintiffs opposed the request but did not provide any details about 

Plaintiffs' position. (ECF No. 15.) The Court directed Plaintiffs to file a response to Defendants’ 

request to seal by October 6, 2023. (Id.) Plaintiffs filed their Response on October 6, 2023,

opposing the request to seal. (ECF No. 16.) 

II. 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 & Cnty. of Honolulu, 

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 

& n.7 (1978)). “[J]udicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is 

entitled to access by default.” Id. at 1180. This “federal common law right of access” to court 

documents generally extends to “all information filed with the court.” Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd 

v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002). The federal common law right of 

access “creates a strong presumption in favor of access to judicial documents which can be 

overcome only by showing sufficiently important countervailing interests.” Id. (citations and 

quotation marks omitted). 

“[T]he court must ‘conscientiously balance[ ] the competing interests’ of the public and the 

party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).

III. Discussion

Defendant seeks to seal the Motion, over Plaintiffs’ objections, on the basis of 8 U.S.C. § 

1367(a)(2). This statute prevents Defendant from disclosing, with a few exceptions, “any 

information which relates to an alien who is the beneficiary of an application for relief” under 

certain paragraphs of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. § 1367(a)(2). Given the

information Plaintiffs provided in their Complaint, which was not filed under seal and is available 

to the public pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(c), the Court does not find a compelling reason to seal 

the entire Motion. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. 

Defendant argues that information about the status of Plaintiffs’ U Visa petitions is

Case 1:23-cv-00863-KES-BAM Document 18 Filed 10/13/23 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

“intertwined with the arguments in support of the Motion to Dismiss.” (Request to Seal at 2.) 

However, Defendant has failed to point out what information, outside of the information Plaintiffs 

provide in their Complaint, should be sealed. See Gonzalez v. Jaddou, No. 4:18-CV-131-BO, 2021 

WL 3686931, at *3 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 18, 2021) (denying defendants’ request to seal their motion to 

dismiss where plaintiffs argued that the information was not sensitive and the memoranda at issue 

did not contain facts beyond those alleged by the plaintiffs in their publicly available complaints). 

Defendant has also failed to explain why redacting portions of the Motion would be impractical.

See Oregonian Publ’g Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Or., 920 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1990)

(holding that, if redaction can eliminate the need for sealing, the documents require redaction rather 

than sealing.); see also E.D. Cal. R. 140. Finally, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(c) limits electronic access to 

the full record of this case. Defendant has failed to explain why this limited electronic access is 

insufficient to protect any interest it has in sealing the Motion. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1367(b)(3), 

Defendant is permitted to disclose information “in connection with judicial review of a 

determination in a manner that protects the confidentiality of such information." 

Accordingly, the Court returns to Defendant so that it may decide how to proceed in light 

of this ruling. See E.D. Cal. R. 141(e)(1). 

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1. Defendant’s request to seal documents, (ECF No. 14), is DENIED without prejudice.

2. Defendant may file a new Motion no later than October 13, 2023.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2023 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00863-KES-BAM Document 18 Filed 10/13/23 Page 3 of 3