Ahn v. GEO Group, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SYLVIA AHN, CASE NO. 1:22-CV-00586-CDB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED REQUEST TO 12 v. SEAL DOCUMENT 13 GEO GROUP, INC., et al., (Doc. 55). 14 Defendants. 15 16 Defendant United States of America has filed a Notice of Unopposed Request to Seal 17 Documents. (Doc. 55.) Defendant requests that the contracts identified as Exhibit 2-B to the 18 Declaration of Natasha Nguyen (Doc. 54) be filed under seal for purposes of the Motion to Dismiss filed 19 by Defendants Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). While Defendant separately submitted to 20 the undersigned Exhibit 2-B and the proposed sealing order as called for under Local Rule 141, 21 Defendant’s submission did not include a separate “Request to Seal Documents” consistent with that 22 Rule. See Local Rule 141(b). 23 “Documents may be sealed only by written order of the Court’ upon the showing required by 24 applicable law.” L.R. 141. Under the First Amendment, the press and the public have a presumed right 25 of access to court proceedings and documents. See generally Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 26 464 U.S. 501, 510 (1985); Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th 27 Cir. 2016); see Olympic Ref. Co. v. Carter, 332 F.2d 260, 264 (9th Cir. 1964) (“In the federal judicial 28 system trial and pretrial proceedings are ordinarily to be conducted in public.”). As a general rule, the 1 public is permitted ‘access to litigation documents and information produced during discovery.’” In re 2 Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Phillips 3 v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F. 3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002) and citing San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. 4 U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). This presumed right can be overcome if (1) 5 closure serves a compelling interest; (2) there is a substantial probability that, in the absence of closure, 6 this compelling interest would be harmed; and (3) there are no alternatives to closure that would 7 adequately protect the compelling interest. Oregonian Publishing Co. v. U.S. District Court for the 8 District of Oregon, 920 F.2d 1462, 1466 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Press Enterprise, 464 U.S. at 510). 9 Defendant’s unopposed motion seeks the filing of Exhibit 2-B to the Declaration of Natasha 10 Nguyen under seal because, according to Defendant’s Notice, it potentially involves competitive 11 information, general safety and/or security information relating to the operation of Mesa Verde and 12 other facilities operated by GEO Group, Inc., as well as the financial privacy rights of ICE and GEO. 13 (Doc. 55). 14 Here, while protecting competitive information and/or safety or security information relating to 15 the operation of a detention facility constitutes a “compelling interest,” Defendant does not articulate 16 how failing to seal the requested document would result in a “substantial probability” that the 17 compelling interest would be harmed. Oregonian Publishing Co., 920 F.2d at 1466. Thus, a nearly 18 identical document to the Performance Work Statement contained in Exhibit 2-B for a different facility 19 is available on the Internet1 and an earlier version of a similar Performance Work Statement is available 20 on the Department of Justice’s website.2 Exhibit 2-B additionally refers to significant amounts of 21 information and resources and references that are available in the public domain, undermining any claim 22 that disclosure would be detrimental. Further, Defendant has not addressed the third prong under 23 Oregonian Publishing Co. – to wit, for instance, whether the filing of a redacted version of Exhibit 2-B 24 could appropriately balance the competing interests under the First Amendment. 25 1 See “Performance Work Statement (PWS) – Port Isabel Detention Center, August 2021,” 26 available at https://www.highergov.com/document/2-4-1-a0006-attachment-1-pws-pidc-clean-pdf- 75f223 (last visited June 21, 2023). 27 2 See “Performance Work Statement” re: Contract Award No. ODT-5-C-0003, available at 28 https://www.justice.gov/archive/ofdt/otay-mesa-contract.pdf (last visited June 21, 2023). 1 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s request to seal is DENIED WITHOUT 2 || PREJUDICE. Defendant may submit an amended application to seal that contains supplemental 3 || information responsive to the analysis set forth above and/or propose the public filing of a redacted 4 || version of Exhibit 2-B, at which point the Court is prepared to reconsider Defendant’s request. > || IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ June 21, 2023 | hwrnrD Pr 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28