Doe 1 v. McAleenan ( 2020 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 JANE DOE 1, et al., Case No. 18-cv-02349-BLF 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL (1) PORTIONS OF THE 10 CHAD F. WOLF, et al., COURT’S JUNE 16, 2020 ORDER; AND (2) PORTIONS OF THE 11 Defendants. DECLARATION OF GABRIEL K. POLING 12 [Re: ECF 364] 13 14 Before the Court is Defendants’ administrative motion to seal portions of this Court’s June 15 16, 2020 Order, see Order, ECF 357, and portions of the Declaration of Gabriel K. Poling 16 submitted in support of this motion, see ECF 364-6. Plaintiffs oppose some of Defendants’ 17 proposed redactions to the June 16, 2020 Order. See Response, ECF 367. The Court has 18 considered the parties’ briefs and declarations concerning this motion. Accordingly, the Court 19 GRANTS Defendants’ administrative motion. 20 21 I. LEGAL STANDARD 22 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 23 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 24 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 25 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the 26 merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for 27 Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only 1 tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 2 1097. 3 Sealing motions filed in this district also must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of 4 sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). Under Civil 5 Local Rule 79-6(d), the submitting party must attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to 6 seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that 7 is sought to be sealed.” In addition, a party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file 8 a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). 9 “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents 10 as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id. 11 Where the moving party requests sealing of documents because they have been designated 12 confidential by another party or a non-party under a protective order, the burden of establishing 13 adequate reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party or non-party. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e). 14 The moving party must file a proof of service showing that the designating party or non-party has 15 been given notice of the motion to seal. Id. “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative 16 Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration . . . establishing that all of 17 the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). “If the Designating Party does not file a 18 responsive declaration . . . and the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is denied, the 19 Submitting Party may file the document in the public record no earlier than 4 days, and no later 20 than 10 days, after the motion is denied.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2). 21 22 II. DISCUSSION 23 The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated compelling reasons for sealing the portions 24 of the hearing transcript as set forth below. 25 ECF No. Document to be Sealed Result Reasoning 357 Order Granting in Part GRANTED This document contains operational 26 and Denying in Part as to the details of highly sensitive 27 Plaintiffs’ Motion (1) highlighted counterterrorism intelligence, methods, for Leave to File a First portions at: and techniques. Decl. of Gabriel K. I (2) to Substitute Parties | 18-20, 20- of this information would create a and Proceed by 22, 22-24, substantial risk of serious harm to vetting 2 Pseudonym; and (3) to 27-28; efforts and to national security. /d. If Amend Class 8:9; disclosed, this information would provide 3 Certification Order 12:14; terrorists, their associates, and other 14:8, 8-10, | criminals with a roadmap of a procedure 4 12-13 by which law enforcement gathers, 5 evaluates, analyzes, and shares information concerning them or other 6 terrorists or criminals. Jd. 4 18. Disclosure of such operational details may cause 7 individuals to alter their behavior or take precautions to avoid detection which 8 would compromise ongoing and future 9 national security investigations. □□□ 364-6 Gabriel K. Poling Decl. | GRANTED | This document explicitly identifies direct 10 as to the uses for the information at issue in ECF highlighted | 357, thereby providing individuals who 11 portions at: | are potential threats to national security a pp. 4-6 “roadmap” to the refugee vetting 12 processes for which Defendants seek 5 43 protection through non-disclosure to the = public. Decl. of Christopher W. Hollis at 14 2, ECF 364-1. 15 16 17 || WL. ORDER 18 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ administrative motion to seal 19 || portions of this Court’s June 16, 2020 Order and portions of the Declaration of Gabriel K. Poling 20 submitted in support of this motion. 2] This order disposes of ECF 364. 22 93 || Dated: September 22, 2020 kom Lh humans 24 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28