Pajman Mohadjer A.K.A Pejman Mohajer v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Jesus Rocha, Acting Field Office Director, San Diego Field Office; and Christopher Larose, Warden
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Cathy Ann Bencivengo 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se petitioner's motion to seal sensitive medical and safety-related documents attached to his habeas petition and a motion for a temporary restraining order. The court granted the motion to seal the specified exhibits and declarations, and ordered the respondents to file a response to the TRO by November 3, 2025.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to seal specific exhibits and declarations granted“The Court ORDERS the following previously filed material sealed: Doc. No. 1, Exhibits A (4-9); Exhibit B (1-9); and Exhibit C (1-8) ... Doc. No. 4, Exhibit 1 ... The Court additionally GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to file his unredacted second declaration under seal.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that protecting privacy interests in medical records and ensuring the safety of a detainee are compelling interests that justify sealing court records. The Ninth Circuit precedent cited supports the proposition that privacy rights can justify sealing medical records. The lack of opposition from respondents further supports the grant of the motion. |
Order requiring response to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order“Respondents shall file a response to the TRO by November 3, 2025.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural order setting a deadline for the opposing party to respond to a pending motion. It is a routine case management decision that does not involve substantive legal analysis at this stage. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the compelling interests of privacy and safety to justify sealing the specific documents identified. The court explicitly lists the documents being sealed, which is required for a sealing order to be effective. The procedural deadline for the TRO response is standard.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 PAJMAN MOHADJER A.K.A Case No.: 3:25-cv-02409-CAB-AHG PEJMAN MOHAJER, 10 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 11 SEAL AND REQUIRING RESPONSE v. TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 12 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the RESTRAINING ORDER 13 Department of Homeland Security; PAMELA JO BONDI, Attorney General; 14 TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director, 15 Immigration and Customs Enforcement; [Doc. Nos. 10–12] JESUS ROCHA, Acting Field Office 16 Director, San Diego Field Office; and 17 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Warden at Otay Mesa Detention Center. 18 Respondents. 19 21 22 Petitioner has moved to seal materials attached to his original pro se habeas petition 23 and to the government’s response because he asserts the documents include sensitive 24 information, including sensitive health information and information that may impact his 25 safety in custody. [Doc. No. 11.] Respondents do not oppose. [Id.] “[P]rotecting an 26 individual’s constitutional and statutory right to privacy is a compelling interest that may 27 justify sealing a particular medical or health record.” Civil Beat Law Ctr. For Pub. Interest, 28 Inc. v. Maile, 117 F.4th 1200, 1210 (9th Cir. 2024). Additionally, ensuring Petitioner’s 1 safety in custody is a compelling interest. See United States v. Doe, 870 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2 |}2017). 3 The Court ORDERS the following previously filed material sealed: 4 e Doc. No. 1, Exhibits A (4-9); Exhibit B (1-9); and Exhibit C (1-8) 5 e Doc. No. 4, Exhibit 1 6 ||The Court additionally GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to file his unredacted second 7 || declaration under seal. [Doc. No. 12.] 8 Petitioner has also filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, [Doc. 9 9], and a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), [Doc. No. 10]. 10 || Respondents shall file a response to the TRO by November 3, 2025. Petitioner may, but 11 |/is not required to, file a traverse in support of his petition by November 6, 2025. 12 It is SO ORDERED. 13 ||Dated: October 27, 2025 (GB 14 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cites, in this corpus
- United States v. John Doe 15-50259 · 2017-09-12