Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01366/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01366-1/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

These items have not been filed but were submitted for 1

in camera review pursuant to Local Rule 39-140(b). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) ORDER

 )

v. )

)

MARIA TERESA AVALOS, )

 )

Defendant. )

)

On September 17, 2007, Defendant gave the Clerk of the

Court an ex parte motion for in camera review in which she seeks

to file a redacted Answer on the public docket and an unredacted

Answer under seal.1

A party filing motions to seal or redact “should

carefully consider not only whether a document or a portion

thereof warrants sealing, but whether what [it] deems to be

confidential is relevant” to an issue in the case. Young v.

Case 2:07-cv-01366-GEB-CMK Document 14 Filed 09/19/07 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

Actions Semiconductor Co., 2007 WL 2177028, at *5 (S.D. Cal. July

27, 2007). When relevancy is not obvious in light of the

apparent issues in a case, the sealing decision should not be

made until it is clear that the requested sealed matter is

relevant. This relevancy determination is important because the

Court should not condone what are “essentially secret judicial

proceedings” on a matter that has no relevancy or sufficient

probative value on an issue in suit. Bank of Am. Nat’l Trust &

Sav. Ass’n v. Hotel Rittenhouse Assocs., 800 F.2d 339, 345 (3d

Cir. 1986). 

Since at this time it is unclear whether the matter

Defendant seeks to redact is relevant to the case, and since

Defendant has not shown the need for the Court to make this

relevancy determination in an ex parte proceeding, Defendant’s ex

parte motion to file an unredacted Answer under seal is denied. 

The Clerk of the Court shall return the unredacted Answer and

Defendant’s ex parte Motion (including the attached Memorandum of

Law and Declaration of Avantika Shastri) to Defendant’s counsel. 

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 on the

public docket if desired); see CBS, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for

the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 765 F.2d 823, 825-26 (9th Cir. 1985)

(returning to party unnecessary and improvidently filed

document). 

Defendant’s ex parte request to file a redacted answer

nunc pro tunc as of the date of September 11, 2007 is granted. 

Case 2:07-cv-01366-GEB-CMK Document 14 Filed 09/19/07 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

Defendant shall file the redacted Answer on the docket no later

than noon on Monday, September 24, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 19, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-01366-GEB-CMK Document 14 Filed 09/19/07 Page 3 of 3