Opinion
2:20-cr-00229-CDS-VCF
10-25-2023
United States of America, Plaintiff v. William Alvear, M.D., Defendant
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBITS [ECF NO. 187]
Cristina D. Silva United States District Judge
Defendant William Alvear moves to seal exhibits in support of his motion in limine because they contain grand jury transcripts. ECF No. [187]. “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Comm'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). “A party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption [of public access to judicial records] by meeting the ‘compelling reasons' standard.” Id. (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Under this stringent standard, a court may seal records only when it finds “a compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1179 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The court must then “'conscientiously balance[ ] the competing interests' of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Id. (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135) (alteration in original). There must be a “compelling reason” for sealing sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1100 (9th Cir. 2016) (applying the “compelling reason” test to motions to seal documents “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case”). What constitutes a “compelling reason” is “best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599.
Here, while Alvear seeks to seal exhibits 181-1 and 181-4, which accompany his motion in limine, he fails to present, discuss, or address the compelling reasons standard. However, after reviewing the exhibits, I find that there is a compelling reason to seal them as they contain transcripts of grand jury proceedings. Moreover, this district's local rules preclude documents pertaining to grand jury proceedings from being filed electronically. See LR IC 1-1(c)(8). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that 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). Thus, I find that grand jury secrecy substantially outweighs the public's right of access to such information.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendant's motion to seal exhibits [ECF No. 187] is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is kindly instructed to seal ECF Nos. 181-1 and 181-4.
Counsel is reminded that future requests to seal must address the applicable standard for sealing documents as explained by Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), and further to comply with the local rules when filing exhibits.