Sanchez Rivas v. Jaddou ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SANDY YESSENIA SANCHEZ RIVAS, No. 1:23-cv-00863-ADA-BAM et al., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO SEAL v. DOCUMENTS 14 UR JADDOU, Director, United States (ECF No. 14) 15 Citizenship and Immigration Services, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Before the Court is the request of Defendant Ur Jaddou, Director, United States Citizenship 19 and Immigration Services to file under seal its Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) pursuant to Local 20 Rule 141. (ECF No. 14.) Upon review of the Motion and Plaintiffs’ response, the Court denies the 21 request for the reasons stated below. 22 I. Background 23 On June 6, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint alleging unreasonable delay in the adjudication 24 of their U Visas. The Complaint contains the names of each Plaintiff, their countries of origin, and 25 the locations where they currently reside. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint also contains sensitive 26 information regarding Plaintiffs’ U Visa petitions, including the nature of the crime(s) against 27 Plaintiffs, the dates of those crimes, and the status of Plaintiffs’ U Visa petitions. (Id.) On October 28 1 3, 2023, Defendant filed a notice of request to seal its Motion. (ECF No. 14.) In an email to the 2 Court, Defendant indicated that Plaintiffs opposed the request but did not provide any details about 3 Plaintiffs' position. (ECF No. 15.) The Court directed Plaintiffs to file a response to Defendants’ 4 request to seal by October 6, 2023. (Id.) Plaintiffs filed their Response on October 6, 2023, 5 opposing the request to seal. (ECF No. 16.) 6 II. Legal Standard 7 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and 8 documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 9 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 10 & n.7 (1978)). “[J]udicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is 11 entitled to access by default.” Id. at 1180. This “federal common law right of access” to court 12 documents generally extends to “all information filed with the court.” Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd 13 v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002). The federal common law right of 14 access “creates a strong presumption in favor of access to judicial documents which can be 15 overcome only by showing sufficiently important countervailing interests.” Id. (citations and 16 quotation marks omitted). 17 “[T]he court must ‘conscientiously balance[ ] the competing interests’ of the public and the 18 party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting 19 Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). 20 III. Discussion 21 Defendant seeks to seal the Motion, over Plaintiffs’ objections, on the basis of 8 U.S.C. § 22 1367(a)(2). This statute prevents Defendant from disclosing, with a few exceptions, “any 23 information which relates to an alien who is the beneficiary of an application for relief” under 24 certain paragraphs of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. § 1367(a)(2). Given the 25 information Plaintiffs provided in their Complaint, which was not filed under seal and is available 26 to the public pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(c), the Court does not find a compelling reason to seal 27 the entire Motion. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. 28 Defendant argues that information about the status of Plaintiffs’ U Visa petitions is 1 | “intertwined with the arguments in support of the Motion to Dismiss.” (Request to Seal at 2.) 2 | However, Defendant has failed to point out what information, outside of the information Plaintiffs 3 | provide in their Complaint, should be sealed. See Gonzalez v. Jaddou, No. 4:18-CV-131-BO, 2021 4 | WL 3686931, at *3 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 18, 2021) (denying defendants’ request to seal their motion to 5 | dismiss where plaintiffs argued that the information was not sensitive and the memoranda at issue 6 | did not contain facts beyond those alleged by the plaintiffs in their publicly available complaints). 7 | Defendant has also failed to explain why redacting portions of the Motion would be impractical. 8 | See Oregonian Publ’g Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Or., 920 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1990) 9 | (holding that, if redaction can eliminate the need for sealing, the documents require redaction rather 10 | than sealing.); see also E.D. Cal. R. 140. Finally, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(c) limits electronic access to 11 | the full record of this case. Defendant has failed to explain why this limited electronic access is 12 | insufficient to protect any interest it has in sealing the Motion. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1367(b)(3), 13 | Defendant is permitted to disclose information “in connection with judicial review of a 14 | determination in a manner that protects the confidentiality of such information." 15 Accordingly, the Court returns to Defendant so that it may decide how to proceed in light 16 | of this ruling. See E.D. Cal. R. 141(e)(1). 17 IV. Conclusion 18 For the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that: 19 1. Defendant’s request to seal documents, (ECF No. 14), is DENIED without prejudice. 20 2. Defendant may file a new Motion no later than October 13, 2023. 21 22 93 | SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: _ October 13, 2023 35 UNITED fTATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28