Opinion
2:07-cv-01366-GEB-CMK.
September 19, 2007
ORDER
On September 17, 2007, Defendant gave the Clerk of the Court an ex parte motion for in camera review in which she seeks to file a redacted Answer on the public docket and an unredacted Answer under seal.
These items have not been filed but were submitted for in camera review pursuant to Local Rule 39-140(b).
A party filing motions to seal or redact "should carefully consider not only whether a document or a portion thereof warrants sealing, but whether what [it] deems to be confidential is relevant" to an issue in the case. Young v. Actions Semiconductor Co., 2007 WL 2177028, at *5 (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2007). When relevancy is not obvious in light of the apparent issues in a case, the sealing decision should not be made until it is clear that the requested sealed matter is relevant. This relevancy determination is important because the Court should not condone what are "essentially secret judicial proceedings" on a matter that has no relevancy or sufficient probative value on an issue in suit. Bank of Am. Nat'l Trust Sav. Ass'n v. Hotel Rittenhouse Assocs., 800 F.2d 339, 345 (3d Cir. 1986).
Since at this time it is unclear whether the matter Defendant seeks to redact is relevant to the case, and since Defendant has not shown the need for the Court to make this relevancy determination in an ex parte proceeding, Defendant's ex parte motion to file an unredacted Answer under seal is denied. The Clerk of the Court shall return the unredacted Answer and Defendant's ex parte Motion (including the attached Memorandum of Law and Declaration of Avantika Shastri) to Defendant's counsel.United States v. Baez-Alcaino, 718 F. Supp. 1503, 1506 (M.D. Fla. 1989) (explaining that when a judge decides in camera that a document is not appropriate for sealing, the document should be returned to the submitting party, who may then file it on the public docket if desired); see CBS, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 765 F.2d 823, 825-26 (9th Cir. 1985) (returning to party unnecessary and improvidently filed document).
Defendant's ex parte request to file a redacted answer nunc pro tunc as of the date of September 11, 2007 is granted. Defendant shall file the redacted Answer on the docket no later than noon on Monday, September 24, 2007.
IT IS SO ORDERED.