N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. DOE, De fe nda

n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-50344

D.C . No. 3:12-c r-00768-LAB -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Larry A. B urns, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

Se pte m be r 1, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TASHIM A, WA RDLAW , a nd B Y B EE, C irc uit Judge s. Doe a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of the pa rtie s’ joint m otion to se a l a n orde r de ny ing a

furthe r re duc tion in sente nc e . W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

n d we re ve rse . 

# FIL ED OCT 21 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.UNITE D STA TE

S OF A M E R IC A v DOE 15-50344

B YB EE, C irc uit Judge , Disse nting I re spe c tfully

disse nt. In de ny ing the m otion to se a l the orde r, the distric t
c ourt did not a

buse its disc re t ion by

a pply ing the “ [in] c orre c t le ga l rule ” or
a pply ing the le ga l sta

nda rd in a wa y tha t wa s “ (1) illogic a l, (2) im pla usible , or (3) without support in infe

re nc e s tha t m ay be drawn from

fa c ts in the re c ord.” Unite d State s v . Hink son , 585 F.3d 1247, 1261–62 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba nc ) (c ita tion
om i tte d). The distric t c ourt sta

te d both thec o m

m o n la w sta nda rd from K amak ana v . C ity & C o unty of Honolulu , 447 F.3d 1172 (9th C ir. 2006), a nd the First Am e ndm e nt te st from Ore gonian Publishing C

o . v . Unite d State

s Distric t C

ourt for Distric t of Ore

gon , 920 F.2d 1462 (9th C ir. 1990), a nd the re fore did not a

pply the i nc orre c t le ga l rule . Although the distric t c ourt did not c le arly se pa rate its
ana ly sis of theFirst Am e ndm e nt a nd c om m on la w rights re ga

rding publica c c e ss to judic ia l doc um e nts, thedistric t c ourt a pplie d both te sts a

nd did not a

buse its disc re tion. The distric t c ourt did not re a c h a n outc om e tha

t wa s illogic a l , im

pla usible , or without support in infe

re nc e s tha t c ould be drawn from

fa c ts in there c ord. The 

# FIL ED OCT 21 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

1distric t c o urt re je c te d se a ling theorde r be c a use it be lie ve d

the re wa s not “ a

ny
e vide nc e tha

t [Doe ] ha s be e n

thre ate ne d , ha

ra sse d, or intimidate d . . . e ve n though the [pe rson] a ga inst whom [Doe ] a gre e d to te stify

is now in fe de ra l prison . . . , knows [Doe ’ s] ide ntify , a n d knows tha

t [Doe ] wa s willing to be a witne ss a ga inst [the m ] .” The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion whe n it found tha t Doe ha d fa ile d to proffe r e v ide nc e to substa ntia te Doe ’ s c la im s a

n d tha t any da n ge r to Doe
wa s “ at be st hy

pothe tic a l a

nd c onje c tura l rat

he r tha n re a l or a c t

ua l.”

2The distric t c ourt a b use d its disc re tion by a

pply ing the inc orre c t rule of la w in de ny ing the m otion to se a l the orde r. Se e Unite d State s v . Hink son , 585 F.3d 1247, 1261–62 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba nc ) (“ [T] he first step of our a b use of disc re tion te st is to de te rm ine de novo whe the r the tria l c ourt ide ntifie d the c orre c t le ga l rule to a

pply to the re lie f re que ste d. If the tria l c ourt fa ile d to do so, we m ust
c onc lude it a

buse d its disc re tion.” ). Our pre c e de nt de line ate s two line s of a na ly sis
re ga rding publica c c e ss to judic ia l doc um e nts. U.S. v . Bus. of C uste r Battle

fie ld Muse u m & Store

Loc ate d at Inte rstate

90, Ex it 514, S. of Billings, Mont. , 658 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th C ir. 2011). First, there is “ a c om m on la wright ‘ to inspe c t a

nd
c opy public re c ords a

nd doc um e nts, inc luding judic i a l re c ords a nd doc um e nts.’ ” Id. (quoting N

ix on v . W arne r C ommc ’ns, Inc
. , 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). Se c ond, the re is “ ‘ a

First Am e ndm e nt right of a c c e ss to c rim i na l proc e e dings’ and doc um e nts the re in.” Id. (quoting Pre ss-Ente r. C

o. v . Supe rior C

ourt of C al. for C ty . of Riv e rside , 478 U.S. 1, 8 (1986)). The distric t c ourt did not make c l e ar unde r whic h a

na l y sis it proc e e de d, a

nd it e rrone ously

c onfla te d the two te sts. Unde r e ithe r sta

n da rd, we c o n c lude tha

t Doe m a de the re quire d showing to se a l the orde r. 1. To ove rc o m e the c om m on la w right of a c c e ss to judic ia l re c ords a nd doc um e nts, Doe m

ust “ artic ulat[e ] c om

p e lling re a sons . . . tha

t outwe igh the
2ge ne ra l history of a c c e ss a nd the public polic ie s fav o ring disc losure .” C uste r Battle fie ld , 658 F.3d a

t 1195 (inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d). Doe ’ s pe rsona l
sa fe ty is a “ c om pe lling re a son[ ] ,” and Doe proffe re d e vide nc e showing tha t Doe fe lt a t risk of pe rsona l ha

rm while im p risone d a

nd tha t Doe ’ s c om

m on-la w spouse ha d be e n phy sic a lly

thre ate n e d during a

pe rtine nt tim e . The distric t c ourt
e rrone ously

re quire d Doe to spe c ific a lly

prove tha t Doe wa s “ a c tua lly ” in da nge r. 2. To ove rc o m e the First Am e ndm e nt right of a c c e ss, Doe m ust show that “ (1) c losure se rve s a

c om pe lling intere s t; (2) the re is a substa ntia l proba

bility that , in the a

b se nc e of c losure , this c o m pe lling intere s t would beha rm e d; a nd (3) the re are no a lte rnat ive s to c losure tha t would a de quate ly

prote c t the c om

pe lling inte re s t.” Ore

gonian Pub. C

o. v . U.S. Dist. C

ourt for Dist. of Or. , 920 F.2d 1462, 1466 (9th C ir. 1990). Unde r the First Am e ndm e n t’ s he ighte ne d sta n da rd, Doe wa s
re quire d to show a

“ substa ntia l proba

bility ” of ha

rm to Doe ’ s sa fe ty . The distric t c ourt re lie d on its de te rm ination tha t the pe rson a ga i nst whom Doe a gre e d to c oope ra t e wa s a lre a dy aware of Doe ’ s ide ntity

and tha t the inform at ion Doe sought to se a l wa s a lre a dy in the public dom a in. Ne ithe r justific at ion survive s c lose e xam ination. Any disc losure to the pe rson a ga inst whom Doe a gre e d to te stify

wa s m e re l y
ora l , not writte n, a

nd wa s m a d e pursua

n t to a prote c tive orde r pre ve nting furthe r
3disse m i nation of tha t inform ation. As Doe

and the gove rnm e nt e m

pha siz e d
re pe ate dly , in prison a

n e s se ntia l diffe re nc e e xists be t we e n unsubsta

ntia te d c la im s that som e one ha s c oope ra te d with prose c utors a nd a c tua l “pa

pe r” proof, in the form of offic ia l c ourt filings, so c onfirm ing. Pe rsons who would reta lia te a ga inst
c oope ra t ors m ay

re fra in from ha

rm ing or thre ate ning a

suspe c te d c oope rator a

bse nt

“ pa pe r” c onfirm ation, from

c ourts, tha

t the a lle ge d c oope ration took plac e . Tha t the p e rson a g a inst whom

Doe a gre e d to te stify

wa s m a de aware of Doe ’ s ide ntity doe s not a lone justify

de ny ing the m o tion to se a l whe re suc h disc losure wa s m a de
ora l ly , unde r a prote c tive orde r, and c ould not bere ve a le d without risking a finding of c rim ina l c onte m

pt. The distric t c ourt furthe r e rre d in finding tha t at the tim e it issue d its orde r, the e le c tronic public doc ke t re ve a le d the fa c t of Doe ’ s c oope ration to the ge ne ra l public . As a

pra c tic a l m atte r, this inform ation wa s not a c tua lly public l y ava ila ble
. A non-pa rty using PublicAc c e ss to C ourt Ele c tronic R e c ords (“ PAC ER ” ) to
une arth inform ation a

bout Doe ’ s c a se m ight ha ve found a

doc um e nt ge ne ric a lly file d , unde r se a l, a s a “ Se nte nc i ng M e m oran dum
. ” Only a pa rty to the c a se would the n be a ble to c lic k on the doc um e nt to a c c e ss the title of the m otion, whic h, to the knowle dge a

b le use r, would ha

ve a llude d to thefa c t of Doe ’ s c oope rat ion. B ut a non-pa rty se e king inform ation a

bout Doe c ould not ha

ve gone so fa

r; inste a d, he
4would ha

ve ha d to phy sic a lly

trave l to a

c ourthouseand re que st the doc um e nt the re , whe re upon he would ha ve re c e ive d a

c o py of a she ll m otion or orde r, bla nk
e xc e pt for the titleof the m otion. It is e xtre m e ly unlike ly tha t a ny prison inm ate
c ould ha v e e x e c ut e d the se ste ps. Thus it wa s sim ply not true , a s a

pra c tic a l m atte r, that the fa c t of Doe ’ s c oope ra tion wa s a lre a d y public ly ava ila ble through PAC ER
at the tim e the distric t c ourt issue d its orde r. Fina lly , the distric t c ourt disre ga rde d e v ide nc e dire c tly

re le va nt to Doe ’ s showing of a

substa ntia l proba

bility of ha rm to Doe ’ s sa fe ty . Doe ’ s c om m on la w spouse wa s phy sic a lly

thre ate ne d shortly

a fte r Doe ’ s a

rre s t by pe rsons Doe be lie ve s we re m otiva

te d to pre ve nt Doe ’ s c oope rat ion with the gove rnm e nt. Although this inc ide nt wa s brought to the distric t c ourt’ s atte n tion in the he arings be low, the distric t c ourt did not addre ss it in deny ing the m o tion to se a l. Our de c ision is c onsiste n t with thegrowing na tionwide re a liz ation a

m ong
c ourts a nd la w e nforc e m e nt offic e s tha t e le c t ronic filing ha s signific antly inc re a se d the risk of ha

rm c oope ra tors fa c e in prison. To tha t e nd, the Judic ia l C onfe re nc e of the U nite d State s ha s a s ke d c ourts to “ c onside r avoiding the use of c oope rators’
nam e s in y our opinions a

nd orde rs, whe ne ve r pra c tic a ble , or to c onside r taking
a dditional a c tions a s y ou se e fit, c onsiste nt with the la w, to obsc ure c oope rators’ ide n titie s to e nsure the ir sa fe ty .” Prote c ting C oope ration Information , 5M e m orandum , Judic ia l C o nfe re nc e of the Unite d State s (Se pt. 17, 2014). The se

c irc um s ta nc e s de m onstra

te tha t the pote ntia l ha

rm s and risks tha

t atte n d
c oope ra t ing witne sse s ha

ve c ha nge d dram atic a lly

in the de c a de s sinc e we de c ide d C BS, Inc . v . Unite d State

s Dist. C ourt for C e nt. Dist. of C

al. , 765 F.2d 823 (9th C ir. 1985). W

he the r unde r the c om

m on la w or the First Am e ndm e nt, Doe ha s
m a de a showing suffic i e nt to justify non-disc l osure . Ac c ordingly , we orde r that the d istric t c o urt pla c e unde r se a l its orde r de ny ing Doe a furthe r se nte nc ing
re duc t ion. RE V E RSE D.

6