Redwood Villa Interfaith Housing Corporation v. Nationwide Affordable Housing Fund 33, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The court addressed a dispute over whether certain documents and testimony should be permanently sealed, having previously denied the defendants' request for permanent sealing without prejudice. The court ordered the Clerk to publicly file the unredacted documents and related submissions because the defendants failed to file a timely renewed motion to seal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Directing the Clerk of Court to publicly file the unredacted Documents (Doc. No. 57) and related unredacted submissions (Doc. Nos. 59, 71, and 73) on the docket.“Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk publicly file the unredacted Documents (currently lodged at Doc. No. 57) on the docket. Court further directs the Clerk to publicly file the related unredacted submissions (currently lodged at Doc. Nos. 59, 71, and 73) on the docket as well.” | agree with court The order recites that the court previously denied the request for permanent sealing without prejudice and set a deadline for a renewed motion. It states that no renewed motion was filed. Therefore, the procedural consequence of public filing follows logically from the prior order and the failure to act within the specified timeframe. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a procedural directive implementing a prior ruling. It correctly applies the condition set in the previous order (Doc. No. 87) that if no renewed motion was filed by the deadline, the documents would be unsealed. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REDWOOD VILLA INTERFAITH Case No.: 24-cv-00233-AJB-JLB HOUSING CORPORATION, 12 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, 13 COURT TO PUBLICLY FILE v. DOCUMENTS 14 NATIONWIDE AFFORDABLE 15 HOUSING FUND 33, LLC, et al., 16 Defendants/Counterclaimants. 17 18 19 On February 6, 2025, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Redwood Village Interfaith 20 Housing Corporation (“Plaintiff”) submitted an Application for Leave to Temporarily File 21 Under Seal Documents & Testimony that Defendants Designated Confidential and Request 22 for Final Determination. (Doc. No. 56.) In response, Defendants/Counterclaimants 23 Nationwide Affordable Housing Fund 33, LLC, and SCDC, LLC (collectively, 24 “Defendants”) maintained that the documents and testimony (collectively, the 25 “Documents”) should be permanently sealed. (Doc. No. 66.) Plaintiff opposed permanent 26 sealing. (Doc No. 56 at 2–3; see also Doc. No. 67.) 27 On August 7, 2025, the Court denied without prejudice Defendants’ request to keep 28 the Documents permanently sealed because Defendants had not demonstrated “compelling 1 reasons” to justify the request. (Doc. No. 87 at 5 (quoting Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 2 || Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006)).) The Court permitted Defendants to file 3 ||a renewed motion to seal no later than August 14, 2025. (/d.) The Court explained that, if 4 ||no renewed motion were timely filed, the Court would instruct the Clerk of Court to file 5 unredacted Documents on the docket. (/d.) 6 No renewed motion has been filed to date. Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk 7 publicly file the unredacted Documents (currently lodged at Doc. No. 57) on the docket. 8 Court further directs the Clerk to publicly file the related unredacted submissions 9 || (currently lodged at Doc. Nos. 59, 71, and 73) on the docket as well. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 ||Dated: August 21, 2025 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28