Opinion
1:09-cr-00142-JLT-3
07-25-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL IOANE, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO SEAL (DOC. 379)
In support of his motion for early termination of supervision, Mr. Ioane submits letters of support. He seeks to have these letters filed under seal, citing concerns over “sensitive personal information and confidential medical information.” (Doc. 379) In doing so he fails to highlight any portion of the letters that detail any personal information or medical information that would meet the standard for sealing.
Local Rule 141(b) requires the moving party to “set forth the statutory or other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to be permitted access to the documents, and all other relevant information.” Likewise, if redaction can occur to eliminate the need for sealing, Oregonian Publishing Co. v. U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, 920 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1990), requires redaction rather than sealing.
The mere reference to “medical information” or “personal information” gives the Court no guidance about the specific material Mr. Ioane seeks to have sealed and no justification as to why redaction could not accomplish the goal, assuming that sealing in any portion of the documents is justified. Thus, because there is no showing what material should be sealed, no showing that sealing is permitted, no citation to authority justifying sealing of the specific information sought to be sealed and no showing that redaction could not alleviate sealing the entire document, the request is DENIED. The defendant may file a properly supported motion or forego the sealing request and file the documents on the public docket. However, further frivolous filings will be grounds for sanctions.
Indeed, the Court has reviewed the letters and sees no material that is either particularly “personal” or which details any specific medical condition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.