Opinion
No. 2:13-cr-00366-KJM
12-28-2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DASHAWN WILLIAMS, Defendant.
ORDER
The government requests that the court file under seal (1) the protective order regarding dissemination of the unredacted grand jury transcripts originally dated November 7, 2013 (the Protective Order), to which defendant proceeding pro se now agrees; (2) the government's request to seal; and (3) this order. As explained below, the court DENIES these requests.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(6) provides, "[r]ecords, orders, and subpoenas relating to grand-jury proceedings must be kept under seal to the extent and as long as necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of a matter occurring before a grand jury." Rule 6(e) secrecy extends beyond grand jury transcripts and includes summaries and discussions of grand jury proceedings. See United States v. Index Newspapers LLC, 766 F.3d 1072, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014). But only a limited set of circumstances can deny the public's access to criminal proceedings. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, Riverside Cnty. (Press-Enterprise I), 464 U.S. 501, 510 (1984) (citing Global Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 606-07 (1982)). The strong presumption of openness can only be overcome by "an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest." Id.
Here, the government argues the Protective Order, request to seal and the sealing order should be filed under seal because otherwise confidential information would be revealed, namely "the contents of and proceedings relating to a secretly convened grand jury." Request to Seal at 2. It is true the Supreme Court has held the nature of the contents and proceedings of a grand jury provide a compelling reason to maintain secrecy. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California for Riverside Cnty (Press-Enterprise II), 478 U.S. 1, 9 (1986). But other than providing a barebones statement simply saying that public filing "will violate the confidentiality and sensitivity applicable" to grand jury proceedings, the government provides no argument or explanation as to exactly how public filing of the documents here will impermissibly pierce the secrecy attendant grand jury proceedings when these documents contain no substantive information relating to the grand jury. See Index Newspapers LLC, 766 F.3d at 1091. The government's filing falls short of providing the good cause required by the applicable law.
Accordingly, the court DENIES the government's requests to seal the Protective Order and request to seal, and files this order on the public docket.
The Clerk of the Court shall return to the government the Protective Order and request to seal as provided by Local Rule 141(e)(1). The government may file these documents on the public record, or resubmit them with a request to seal that addresses the issues raised above.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: December 28, 2015.
/s/_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE