(HC) (DP) Gordon v. Chappell ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PATRICK BRUCE GORDON, Case No. 2:91-cv-00882-MCE-JDP (DP) 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER 13 v. SEAL 14 KEVIN CHAPPELL, ECF No. 424 15 Respondent. ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S REQUEST TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER 16 SEAL 17 ECF No. 445 18 19 20 Pending before the court are two related requests to file documents under seal, one filed 21 by petitioner, ECF No. 424, and the other by respondent, ECF No. 445. Petitioner requests to seal 22 claim E and a portion of claim D in his supplemental brief in support of his amended petition for 23 habeas corpus because those claims relate to the disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity. 24 The claims cite and discuss the transcript of an in camera hearing held in the San Joaquin 25 Superior Court at which a law enforcement officer declined to reveal the identity of the 26 confidential informant by invoking a California law privilege. See Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1040- 27 1047. The California Supreme Court lodged a sealed copy of the transcript at the parties’ request, 28 1 | and this court previously designated it confidential. ECF No. 273, see also ECF No. 360 at 13. 2 || Respondent asks to seal his responses to petitioner’s claims because, in crafting them, it was 3 | necessary to cite the sealed transcript. There are no objections to either request to seal. 4 Tn the Ninth Circuit, there is a “strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” 5 | See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). However, the 6 || presumption is not absolute and a party seeking to seal documents related to a dispositive motion 7 | may justify sealing by offering “compelling reasons” that outweigh the public interest in 8 | understanding the judicial process. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 9 | 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006). Courts in this circuit have found that protecting the identities of 10 | informants is a compelling reason that justifies sealing documents. See, e.g., Mitchell v. Cate, 11 | Civ. No. 2:11-1240-JAM-AC P, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58802, 2014 WL 16715839, at *3 (E.D. 12 | Cal. Apr. 28, 2014) (sealing “information [that] cannot be revealed without endangering 13 | informants”); United States v. Conner, No. 15-CR-00296 HSG 1, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166564, 14 | 2015 WL 8482205, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2015) (“The two declarations of defense counsel at 15 || issue are extremely sensitive because they both contain the possible identity of a confidential 16 | informant. Accordingly, the Court orders both declarations to be filed under seal.”). 17 It is ordered that: 18 1. Petitioner’s request to seal, ECF No. 424, is granted. 19 2. Respondent’s request to seal, ECF No. 445, is granted. 20 3. The documents identified in both requests to seal are ordered sealed and accessible 21 | only to the parties until further order of the court. 22 3. The documents identified in both requests to seal are ordered sealed and accessible 23 | only to the parties until further order of the court. 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 | q Sty — Dated: _ December 2, 2020 _ ——— 27 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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