(DP) Contreras v. Davis ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 JORGE CONTRERAS, Case No. 1:19-cv-01523-AWI-SAB 8 Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE 9 v. ORDER REGARDING PETITIONER’S 10 REQUEST TO SEAL RON BROOMFIELD1, 11 (Doc. No. 113) Respondent. 12 13 I. 14 INTRODUCTION 15 On October 25, 2022, Petitioner Jorge Contreras, through counsel Brian Pomerantz and 16 Craig Cooley, filed a notice of a request to seal documents on the public docket; the notice is 17 associated with a motion that will be filed ex parte and under seal to transfer this case to the 18 Sacramento Division in order to resolve a conflict. See Doc. No. 113. Petitioner has submitted 19 under seal and ex parte the underlying request/motion to seal documents, the motion to transfer 20 this case to the Sacramento Division, supporting exhibits 1 through 4 to the motion to transfer, and 21 a proposed order. 22 Petitioner states that the motion and four supporting exhibits must be filed under seal “so 23 as not to publicly divulge budget matters which are normally sealed.” Doc. No. 113 at 2. Petitioner 24 further states that the documents to be sealed, the ex parte motion and four supporting exhibits, 25 and the proposed sealing order, have not been served upon Respondent because case budgeting 26 matters are presumptively confidential and handled ex parte. See id. Respondent has not opposed 27 1 Ron Broomfield, appointed as warden of San Quentin State Prison in September 2021, is substituted as 1 or otherwise responded to Petitioner’s publicly filed notice of request to seal, and the time for 2 doing so has passed. L.R. 141(c). 3 4 II. 5 LEGAL STANDARD 6 Pursuant to the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of 7 California, documents may only be sealed by written order of the Court upon the showing required 8 by applicable law. L.R. 141(a). Courts have long recognized a “general right to inspect and copy 9 public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & 10 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 11 Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Nevertheless, this access to judicial records is not absolute. 12 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1172. Courts distinguish a category of documents that is not subject to the 13 right of public access because the documents have “traditionally been kept secret for important 14 policy reasons.” Times Mirror Co. v. United States, 873 F.2d 1210, 1219 (9th Cir. 1989). 15 Since resolution of disputes on the merits “is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the 16 ‘public’s understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events[,]’ . . . ‘compelling 17 reasons’ must be shown to seal judicial records attached to a dispositive motion.” Kamakana, 447 18 F.3d at 1179. Where applicable, compelling reasons must be demonstrated by the party seeking 19 to seal a judicial record. See id. at 1178. The Ninth Circuit previously drew a clear distinction 20 between dispositive and non-dispositive motions in determining whether compelling reasons must 21 be shown to seal such documents, stating: “[i]n sum, we treat judicial records attached to 22 dispositive motions differently from records attached to non-dispositive motions.” Id. at 1179. 23 More recently, the Ninth Circuit has clarified that the focus in determining whether compelling 24 reasons must be shown is not on the dispositive nature of the motion, but whether the motion at 25 issue is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case. Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 26 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Therefore, compelling reasons must be shown 27 to seal a motion that is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, or records attached 1 Additionally, under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (hereinafter “CJA”), 2 funding documents generally are filed ex parte and under seal. Phillips v. Chappel, 2015 U.S. 3 Dist. LEXIS 57647, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2015) (citing, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e); Guidelines 4 for Administering the CJA and Related Statutes, Vol. 7 of the Guide to Judiciary Policy, 5 (“Guidelines”), § 230.26.20(c) (“Case budgets should be submitted ex parte and filed and 6 maintained under seal.”)). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f), ex parte consideration of funding 7 applications filed pursuant to the CJA requires a showing of the need for confidentiality. Under 8 the Guidelines, ex parte applications for services other than counsel must be placed under seal 9 until the final disposition of the case in the trial court, subject to further order of the court. 10 Guidelines, § 310.30. “Maintaining the secrecy of the application prevents the possibility that an 11 open hearing may cause defendants to reveal their defense.” Id. 12 13 III. 14 DISCUSSION 15 The Court has reviewed the request to seal documents and the contents of the documents 16 to be sealed. The Court finds that Petitioner’s motion to transfer and supporting exhibits 1 through 17 4 contain or reflect CJA funding and payment information, as well as information regarding 18 attorney appointment, representation, procedures, and strategies and the attorney client 19 relationship, that are inherently confidential and that the need to maintain such confidentiality 20 outweighs the presumption of public access to the judicial record, whether under the good cause 21 or compelling reasons standard. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A; 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f); Kamakana, 447 22 F.3d at 1178-79; United States v. Gonzales, 150 F.3d 1246, 1266 (10th Cir. 1998); Miroth v. Cnty. 23 of Trinity, 2022 WL 3965789, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2022); Doolin v. Cullen, 2010 WL 24 3943523, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2010). Thus, the Court will grant Petitioner’s request to seal. 25 IV. 26 ORDER 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1 2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file under seal Petitioner’s 3-page 2 Request to Seal Documents, 36-page ex parte motion to transfer the case to the 3 Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California, and the motion to 4 transfer’s supporting exhibits 1 through 4 (which total 25 pages); 5 3. The sealed documents are not to be served upon counsel for Respondent and shall 6 remain under seal until further order of the Court; 7 4. The foregoing documents, including information contained therein, constitute 8 confidential information which shall not be disclosed, in whole or part, to any 9 person other than the Court and Court staff for their use solely in connection with 10 the litigation of the habeas corpus proceeding pending before this Court; 11 5. No publicly filed document shall include the above documents and/or the 12 information set forth therein unless authorized by the Court to be filed under seal; 13 and 14 6. All provisions of this order shall continue to be binding after the conclusion of this 15 habeas corpus proceeding and specifically shall apply in the event of a retrial of all 16 or any portion of Petitioner’s criminal case, except that Petitioner maintains the 17 right to request modification or vacation of this order upon entry of final judgment. 18 19 IS SO ORDERED. □□ 29 Pated: _November 2, 2022 — ZS Cb ut — SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28