From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Miske

United States District Court, District of Hawaii
Mar 2, 2022
19-cr-00099-DKW-KJM-1 (D. Haw. Mar. 2, 2022)

Opinion

19-cr-00099-DKW-KJM-1 22-mc-00008-DKW-KJM

03-02-2022

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. MISKE, Defendant. IN RE CIVIL BEAT LAW CENTER FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST, Objector.


ORDER REMANDING DECISION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION

DERRICK K. WATSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pending before the Court is an appeal by Defendant Michael J. Miske of the decision of the assigned Magistrate Judge to deny without prejudice his motion to file certain exhibits under seal. Dkt. No. 470. Therein, Miske contends that the Magistrate Judge's decision is “contrary to law” for various reasons, principally because the Magistrate Judge purportedly considered whether the exhibits (for which sealing has been sought) were “more than tangentially related” to the merits of this case, rather than the motion to which the exhibits were attached. Dkt. No. 1 470-2 at 15-16. The government, in response to Defendant's appeal, makes a similar assertion. Dkt. No. 472 at 6-11.

Unless otherwise noted, citations to the record are to docket entries filed in Case No. 19-cr-99-DKW-KJM-1.

The Magistrate Judge's decision, however, is unclear on that point. In one place, as Miske and the government state, the Magistrate Judge found “that the Subject Exhibits” attached to the underlying motion to compel “appear to be more than tangentially related to these criminal proceedings….” Dkt. No. 466 at 15 (emphasis added). The Magistrate Judge then expounded, using one of the Exhibits in question as an example. Id. If the Magistrate Judge had stopped at that point, there may have been cause to agree with appellant. The Magistrate Judge, however, continued by also determining that the underlying motion implicated Defendant's constitutional rights, concluding that, “[d]ue to the strong presumption in favor of public access and the nature of the underlying Motion to Compel, ” Defendant was required to show a compelling reason for sealing the relevant exhibits. Id. at 16 (emphasis added).

In this light, it is unclear whether the Magistrate Judge relied on the underlying motion, the exhibits, or a combination of both when determining the appropriate standard to employ to Defendant's sealing request. To be clear, at least under this Court's reading of the pertinent case law, the correct approach is for the underlying motion to be considered when determining whether a matter is 2 “more than tangentially related” to the merits of a case. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The focus in all of our cases is on whether the motion at issue is more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action.”) (emphasis added). While the exhibits attached to a motion may well inform whether a motion is “more than tangentially related” to a case, it is still the motion (and the relief sought therein) that drives the inquiry. See id. at 1102 (pointing to the relief sought in a motion for preliminary injunction as reason for concluding the motion was “more than tangentially related to the merits.”).

Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest's (Civil Beat) argument that the Magistrate Judge did “not look only” to the exhibits, see Case No. 22-mc-8-DKW-KJM, Dkt. No. 7 at 15, even if true, therefore, misses the point.

As a result, it is necessary to remand this matter to the Magistrate Judge for clarification. Upon issuance of that clarification, the parties may avail themselves, if they wish, of Local Criminal Rule 57.3(b), explaining to what extent, if any, the matters on appeal have been altered by that clarification. If no appellate issue remains, the parties shall so state within the time afforded by the same rule. 3

Defendant's appeal, Dkt. No. 470, is, therefore, HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further clarification from the Magistrate Judge and direction from the parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 4


Summaries of

United States v. Miske

United States District Court, District of Hawaii
Mar 2, 2022
19-cr-00099-DKW-KJM-1 (D. Haw. Mar. 2, 2022)
Case details for

United States v. Miske

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. MISKE, Defendant. IN RE…

Court:United States District Court, District of Hawaii

Date published: Mar 2, 2022

Citations

19-cr-00099-DKW-KJM-1 (D. Haw. Mar. 2, 2022)