Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Request to Seal Documents — United States v. Smith (Dkt. 82)

Summary

Order denying in part and granting in part a request to seal documents (ECF No. 81), filed June 30, 2023 as Document 82 in United States v. Christina Smith, No. 1:20-cr-00253-ADA-BAM-2, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The defendant asked under Local Rule 141 to seal her supplemental emergency motion for early release and its exhibits, saying they contain sensitive and private medical information. The Court seals the supplemental motion, Exhibit D and Exhibit G until further notice, and denies the request without prejudice as to Exhibits A, B, C, E, and F, finding no compelling reason to seal them. The order says the documents denied sealing are treated as returned to the defendant.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

     Case 1:20-cr-00253-ADA-BAM Document 82 Filed 06/30/23 Page 1 of 4


 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8                                    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 9                          FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10

11    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                         No. 1:20-cr-00253-ADA-BAM-2
12                       Plaintiff,
13            v.                                        ORDER DENYING IN PART AND
                                                        GRANTING IN PART REQUEST TO SEAL
14    CHRISTINA SMITH,                                  DOCUMENTS
15                       Defendant.                     (ECF No. 81)
16

17           Before the Court is the request of Defendant Christina Smith (“Defendant”), to file under
18   seal her supplemental emergency motion for early release and related exhibits pursuant to Local
19   Rule 141. (ECF No. 81.) Upon review of the motion and exhibits, the Court partially denies and
20   partially grants the request for the reasons stated below.
21      I.         Background
22           On September 7, 2021, Defendant was sentenced in this action. (ECF No. 38.) On July 19,
23   2022, Defendant filed a pro se motion for compassionate release pursuant to the First Step Act and
24   18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). (ECF No. 60.) On January 27, 2023, Defendant withdrew her motion
25   for compassionate release. (ECF No. 76.) On April 18, 2023, Defendant filed another pro se
26   motion for compassionate release. (ECF No. 78.)
27           On August 26, 2022, the Court appointed counsel for Defendant. (ECF No. 66.) On April
28
                                                        1
     Case 1:20-cr-00253-ADA-BAM Document 82 Filed 06/30/23 Page 2 of 4


 1   21, 2023, the Court issued a briefing schedule for the motion for compassionate release filed on
 2   April 18, 2023. (ECF No. 79.) Therein, the Court directed Defendant’s counsel to either file a
 3   supplement to Defendant’s pro se motion or notify the Court and the government that he does not
 4   intend to file a supplement. (Id. at 2.) On June 21, 2023, Defendant filed a one-page notice of a
 5   request to seal her supplemental “Emergency Motion for Early Release and Exhibits A-G” alleging
 6   that the documents “contain sensitive and private medical information.” (ECF No. 81.) Defendant
 7   emailed the Court and opposing counsel the motion and exhibits that she requests to seal.
 8      II.       Legal Standard
 9             “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and
10   documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu,
11   447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597
12   & n.7 (1978)). “[J]udicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is
13   entitled to access by default.” Id. at 1180. This “federal common law right of access” to court
14   documents generally extends to “all information filed with the court.” Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd
15   v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002). The federal common law right of
16   access “creates a strong presumption in favor of access to judicial documents which can be
17   overcome only by showing sufficiently important countervailing interests.” Id. (citations and
18   quotation marks omitted).
19             In deciding whether sufficient countervailing interests exist, the Court looks to the “public
20   interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in
21   improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.
22   Id. at 1213. “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment,
23   incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its
24   records.” Ambriz v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 119CV01391NONEBAM, 2020 WL 4368364, at *1
25   (E.D. Cal. July 30, 2020) (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179).
26      III.      Discussion
27             In her notice of request to seal documents, Defendant alleges that her “Emergency Motions
28   for Early Release and Exhibits A-G” need to be filed under seal because they “contain sensitive
                                                          2
     Case 1:20-cr-00253-ADA-BAM Document 82 Filed 06/30/23 Page 3 of 4


 1   and private medical information.” (ECF No. 81.) After review of the documents at issue, the Court
 2   agrees with Defendant that the supplemental motion for early release titled “Emergency Motion for
 3   Early Release Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) (Compassionate Release); Request for Expedited
 4   Briefing and Decision” and Exhibit D titled “Torts Claim SF-95 DOC,” contain sensitive and
 5   private information. The Court also agrees that Exhibit G titled “BOP Fit Treatment Summary”
 6   contains sensitive and private medical information. See San Ramon Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v.
 7   Principal Life Ins. Co., No. C 10-02258 SBA, 2011 WL 89931, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011)
 8   (recognizing that the need to protect medical privacy has qualified as a “compelling reason” for
 9   sealing records in connection with dispositive motions). For the reasons stated in Defendant’s
10   request to seal, and because there is no practical way to redact the documents, the Court seals the
11   supplemental motion, Exhibit D, and Exhibit G until further notice by the Court.
12          As to Exhibit A titled “Darell Smith Indictment” and Exhibit F titled “Order in United States
13   v. Chavira, 3:18-CR-4216 CAB,” the Court does not find a compelling reason to seal these exhibits
14   as they are already published to the public. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. As such, the Court
15   denies Defendant’s request to seal Exhibit A and Exhibit F.
16          As to Exhibit B titled “BOP Time Credit & Sentence Computation,” Exhibit C titled “BOP
17   Discipline Hearing Officer Report,” and Exhibit E titled “BOP Prison Progress Report,” the Court
18   finds that it is unnecessary to seal the documents in their entirety. If there are portions that should
19   be sealed, the Court does not see them, and Defendant has failed to point them out. Defendant
20   merely makes a blanket request to seal the documents in their entirety. See Oregonian Publ’g Co.
21   v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Or., 920 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1990) (finding that if redaction can
22   eliminate the need for sealing, the documents require redaction rather than sealing.); see also Local
23   Rule 140. Since Defendant has not justified her sealing request for these documents and the Court
24   does not see a need for sealing them, the Court denies Defendant’s request to seal Exhibits B, C,
25   and E. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1172 (“Simply invoking a blanket claim, such as privacy . . . or
26   law enforcement, will not, without more, suffice to exempt a document from the public’s right of
27   access.”).
28   ///
                                                        3
     Case 1:20-cr-00253-ADA-BAM Document 82 Filed 06/30/23 Page 4 of 4


 1            Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant has identified a compelling interest to seal
 2   Exhibits D and G, but has failed to identify compelling interests to seal Exhibits A, B, C, E, and F.
 3            As to the documents the Court denied to seal, they are treated as having been returned to
 4   Defendant so that she can decide how to proceed in light of this ruling. See generally Local Rule
 5   141(e)(1) (stating that if the sealing “[r]equest is denied in full or in part, the Clerk will return to
 6   the submitting party the documents for which sealing has been denied.”).
 7      IV.      Conclusion
 8            For the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that:
 9            1. Defendant’s request to seal documents, (ECF No. 81), is DENIED in part and
10               GRANTED in part as follows:
11                   a. As to Defendant’s supplemental emergency motion for early release, the
12                       request to seal is GRANTED;
13                   b. As to Defendant’s Exhibit D, the request is GRANTED;
14                   c. As to Defendant’s Exhibit G, the request is GRANTED;
15                   d. As to Defendant’s Exhibits A, B, C, E, and F, the request is DENIED without
16                       prejudice; and
17            2. The documents to be sealed, shall be sealed until further notice by the Court.
18

19
20   IT IS SO ORDERED.

21      Dated:      June 30, 2023
                                                         UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22

23

24

25

26

27

28
                                                         4


File and source

File

82.pdf

Size

183,222 bytes

SHA-256

55da738fb6f7c8a6ebe1d22ab9c770330beb9f4882639f1e969e9d6168a7c3b2

Our copy

82.pdf

Original

No public link identified.