Summary
In Wondie, the defendant was being investigated for murder, and the assigned detective recovered shell casings from the crime scene and had them entered into NIBIN. 2021 WL 5987099, at *2.
Summary of this case from United States v. BarrowOpinion
CR18-315 RAJ
12-16-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. GIZACHEW WONDIE, Defendant.
ORDER
THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In a previous Order, this Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant Gizachew Wondie's motion to unseal. Dkt. # 334. It instructed the parties to submit their joint proposed redactions to the Court's previous orders. Id. at 4.
The Court also denied the government's motion to seal its response to Mr. Wondie's motion to seal. Dkt. # 334. The Court said that the government could file a redacted version of its response “consistent” with the Court's order. Id. The government says that its currently-sealed response, located at Docket No. 327, may be unsealed. Dkt. # 338. Yet it maintains that the attachments to the response, not the response itself, contains confidential information. Id. The Court will allow those attachments to remain under seal. Dkt. ## 327-1 to 327-4.
The parties have since filed their proposed redactions, not without disagreement.
Mr. Wondie has filed those proposed redacted versions under seal. To that end, he has filed a motion to seal those proposed redacted versions. Dkt. # 335. Given that the unsealing of those versions would entirely defeat the purpose of this sealing process, the Court finds good cause for those proposed redacted versions to remain under seal. Dkt. # 337. Thus, the Court GRANTS Mr. Wondie's motion. Dkt. # 335.
Dkt. ## 336, 337. Though the parties agree that only a single redaction need be applied to the Court's order located at Docket No. 321, they disagree about the redactions to be applied to the Court's other order, located at Docket No. 314. To that end, they have submitted different proposed redacted versions of the order located at Docket No. 314. Dkt. ## 337-1, 337-2.
The Court adopts the government's version. Dkt. # 337-2. The Court previously allowed “the name and other identifying characteristics of the murder victim” to remain under seal. Dkt. # 334 at 4 (emphasis added). The government believes that “the date of the homicide and the caliber and number of rounds of the ammunition at issue” are “identifying characteristics.” Dkt. # 336 at 2. The Court agrees. As the government puts it, these details “effectively identify the particular homicide, ” potentially harming an ongoing murder investigation while providing no meaningful benefit to the public. Id.
The parties are instructed to send a PDF version of the two redacted orders (Dkt. ## 337, 337-2) to the Court's courtroom deputy so that the Court may file those versions publicly. Further, the Court directs the Clerk to unseal Docket No. 327. Docket Nos. 327-1 to 327-4, however, shall remain under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.