L.J. v. Larose
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court considered Petitioner L.J.'s motion to file documents under seal to redact personally identifying information related to her asylum claim. The court granted the motion, finding that the Petitioner's interest in confidentiality outweighed the public's interest in access.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to File Documents Under Seal granted“Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion to File Documents Under Seal (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit standard from Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., which requires 'sufficiently compelling reasons' to override the presumption of public access. The court identified the specific compelling reason (protection of personally identifying information in an asylum claim) and noted that redacted public versions were filed, satisfying the procedural requirements for sealing. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sufficient. It cites the correct binding authority for the standard of review (compelling reasons) and applies it to the specific facts (asylum claim, PII). It also notes the filing of redacted public versions, which is a key procedural safeguard in sealing orders.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3 L.J., Case No. 3:25-cv-1317-GPC-JLB 4 Petitioner, Hon. Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel 5 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION 6 FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED 7 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Warden, Otay UNDER PSEUDONYM AND TO Mesa Detention Center; GREGORY J. FILE UNDER SEAL 8 ARCHAMBEAULT, San Diego Field Office Director; TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director [ECF No. 4] 9 of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of 10 the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 11 Respondents. 12 13 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to file documents under seal. ECF No. 4. 14 Specifically, Petitioner seeks to redact her name and the names and personally identifying 15 information of others named in her exhibits. See id. at 5-6. Given that these redactions are limited 16 and pertain to Petitioner’s asylum claim, the Court finds that there are sufficiently compelling 17 reasons to override the presumption in favor of access to court records. See Foltz v. State Farm 18 Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The common law right of access, 19 however, is not absolute and can be overridden given sufficiently compelling reasons for doing 20 so.”). Here, Petitioner’s interest in keeping her personally identifying information and that of 21 others confidential outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure. See id. Petitioner has already 22 filed public, redacted versions of the proposed sealed documents with her Petition. See ECF No. 23 1. 24 25 Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion to File Documents Under Seal (ECF No. 4) is 26 GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file the documents, currently lodged with the 27 Court at ECF No. 5, UNDER SEAL. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 2, 2025 3; Casto 0h 4 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28