Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01366/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01366-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Maria Teresa Avalos
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 2:07-cv-01366-GEB-CMK

 )

 ) ORDER

 )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

MARIA TERESA AVALOS, )

 )

)

Defendant. )

)

On September 11, 2007, Defendant gave the Clerk of the

Court a motion in which she seeks an order allowing her to file

her Answer under seal. The motion is clearly overbroad and

indicates Defendant’s counsel lack understanding of Ninth Circuit

sealing jurisprudence. 

I do not condone limiting public access to judicial

records. Such public access “promotes informed discussion of

governmental affairs by providing the public with [a] more

complete understanding of the judicial system” and promotes the

“public perception of fairness which can be achieved only by

Case 2:07-cv-01366-GEB-CMK Document 10 Filed 09/12/07 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

permitting full public view of the proceedings.” Bank of America

Nat. Trust v. Hotel Rittenhouse, 800 F.2d 339, 345 (3 Cir. rd

1986). 

The Ninth Circuit, in Kamakana v. City and County of

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (2006), recently gave a thorough overview

of the right of access to judicial records and the standard a

party must meet to seal such records. The court noted that

“‘there is a strong presumption in favor of access’” to court

records and “[a] party seeking to seal a judicial record then

bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption by meeting

the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.” Id. at 1178 (quoting Foltz v.

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (2003)). 

Defendant asserts in her motion that good cause exists to

file her Answer under seal. However, the compelling reasons

standard is higher than the good cause showing required under

Rule 26(c) to seal documents produced in discovery. “Unlike

private materials unearthed during discovery, judicial records

are public documents almost by default” and therefore, “[a] ‘good

cause’ showing will not, without more, satisfy a ‘compelling

reasons’ test.” Id. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns., 435 U.S.

589, 597 (1978); Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135-36). 

If Defendant opines that some portion of her Answer

should be sealed, she should seek an order authorizing redaction

for that portion and, if granted, file a redacted Answer on the

public docket and only an unredacted Answer under seal. See E.D.

Cal. R. 39-140(b)(discussing court authorized redactions and

filing of redacted and sealed unredacted documents). 

The Clerk of the Court is directed to return the sealed

Case 2:07-cv-01366-GEB-CMK Document 10 Filed 09/12/07 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

manilla envelopes to Defendant’s counsel. See United States v.

Baez-Alcaino, 718 F. Supp. 1503, 1506 (M.D. Fla. 1989)

(explaining that when a judge decides in camera that a document

is not appropriate for sealing, the document should be returned

to the submitting party, who may then file it in the public

records if desired). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-01366-GEB-CMK Document 10 Filed 09/12/07 Page 3 of 3