Dousa v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
Defendant CBP filed an unopposed motion to seal certain documents already on the public docket, which the Court declined to grant immediately. The Court ordered CBP to file further briefing addressing specific questions regarding the public interest, the documents' prior exposure, and the necessity of the requested redactions.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Ordering further briefing on the motion to seal“The Court orders further briefing to answer the questions below.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that it must independently weigh the interests in access to court documents even in the absence of opposition. By ordering briefing rather than granting the motion, the court adhered to the requirement that sealing is not automatic and requires a specific showing of need, particularly given the documents' prior public exposure. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the Ninth Circuit standard for sealing documents by refusing to grant the motion without an independent assessment. The court's specific questions regarding the 'UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO/LES' designation and the prior public dissemination of the documents are legally relevant to the balancing test required by Center for Auto Safety.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KAJI DOUSA, CASE NO. 19cv1255-LAB (KSC) 11 Plaintiff, 12 ORDER RE: FURTHER BRIEFING ON vs. MOTION TO SEAL [Dkt. 74] 13 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 14 HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) filed an unopposed 17 motion to seal certain documents already in the docket, replacing them with more 18 extensively redacted versions. Dkt. 74. Even in the absence of party opposition, the Court 19 cannot grant a motion to seal without independently weighing the movant’s interest 20 against the public’s interest in access to court documents. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. 21 Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1098 (9th Cir. 2016). To assist the Court in assessing 22 these interests in relation to the redactions in question, the Court orders further briefing 23 to answer the questions below. 24 CBP’s motion relates to documents filed on December 20, 2019. CBP did not file 25 its motion until the documents had sat on the public docket for nearly seven months. In 26 the interim, at least one news organization appears to have downloaded a copy of those 27 documents and republished portions of them. See https://www.nbcsandiego.com/ 28 news/investigations/u-s-border-agents-suspected-pastor-performed-sham-marriages- 1 || for-migrant-caravan-members/2240500/. These documents have long been exposed to 2 || the public in connection with a case that has received substantial media attention. How 3 || strong can CBP’s interest in secrecy be when the documents are no longer secret? And 4 || would sealing them merely draw greater attention to document copies already out of the 5 || Court’s and the parties’ control? 6 Next, the Court notes that the documents bear the designation 7 || “UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO/LES.” Does this designation exempt the documents from 8 || disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act? 9 Lastly, CBP asks that the Court redact pages 6 and 29 of Dkt. 55-13 and Dkt. 60-2 10 in their entirety. The information on these pages appears to the Court to be generic or 11 || easily inferred from the subject matter of this litigation. The Associated Workspace 12 || number that the Heitke Declaration identifies as sensitive are already redacted from page 13 || 6. Dkt. No. 74-1. And anyone reading the parties’ pleadings can guess the reasons— 14 || identified in the “Category/Subcategory” field on pages 6 and 29—that the documents 15 || state for CBP’s interest in the content of the associated Field Encounter Reports. Does 16 || CBP have a specific interest in protecting other sensitive information on these pages? 17 The Court orders CBP to address these questions in a brief no longer than ten (10) 18 || pages within fourteen (14) days of this Order. Other interested parties may submit similar 19 || briefs by the same deadline. 20 21 || Dated: June 29, 2020 (tm / Af. (Boy WV 22 HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS 53 Chief United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28