(HC) Shrader v. Garland ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS CREIGHTON SHRADER, CASE NO. 1:21-CV-01229-AWI-CDB 12 Petitioner, ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS AS SET FORTH IN RESPONDENT’S NOTICE 13 v. 14 WARDEN, FCI-MENDOTA, Doc. 21 15 Respondent. 16 17 Pursuant to Local Rule 141(b) and based upon the representation contained in the Respondent’s 18 Request to Seal, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appendix pp 165-181 to the Respondent’s Motion to 19 Dismiss and Response to Peitioner’s 2241 Petition pertaining to Thomas Shrader, and the Respondent’s 20 Request to Seal, shall be SEALED until further order of this Court. 21 It is further ordered that electronic access to the sealed documents shall be limited to the 22 Respondent and the Petitioner. 23 The Court has considered the factors set forth in Oregonian Publ’g Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for 24 Dist. of Or., 920 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1990). The Court finds that, for the reasons stated in the 25 Respondent’s Request, sealing the Request and Appendix pp. 165-181 serves a compelling interest. The 26 Court further finds that, in the absence of closure, the compelling interests identified by the Respondent 27 would be harmed. In light of the public filing of the Respondent’s Notice to Seal (Doc. 21), the Court 28 further finds that there are no additional alternatives to sealing the Respondent’s Request and Appendix 1 |} pp. 165-181 that would adequately protect the compelling interests identified by the Respondent. 2 ACCORDINGLY, the Respondent’s request to file these documents under seal is GRANTED. 3 || Within three court days, the Respondent SHALL submit Respondent’s Request to Seal and the 4 || document to be sealed by email to ApprovedSealed @caed.uscourts. gov. 5 || IT IS SO ORDERED. °|| Dated: November 14, 2022 | hr Rr 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