Order Denying Request to Seal — United States v. Shahriar Loloee (E.D. Cal., Dkt. 76, August 15, 2024)

Summary

Order denying a request to seal, filed August 15, 2024 as Document 76 in United States v. Shahriar "Sean" Loloee et al., No. 2:23-cr-0320 KJM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Loloee moved to suppress statements he made in a deposition in the civil action Su v. SL One Global, Inc., and asked to file excerpts of the transcript under seal. The court states he did not support the request with particular citations or descriptions of the sensitive information, and the excerpts do not include references to the Fourth or Fifth Amendments. The request is denied without prejudice to renewal within fourteen days; otherwise a copy of the exhibit must be filed on the public docket. Dated August 14, 2024.

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 2:23-cr-00320-KJM Document 76 Filed 08/15/24 Page 1 of 3


 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. 2:23-cr-0320 KJM
12                              Plaintiff,                  ORDER
13           v.
14
     Shahriar “Sean” Loloee, et al.,
15
                                Defendants.
16

17          Defendant Shahriar “Sean” Loloee moves to suppress statements he made in a deposition

18   in a civil action, Su v. SL One Global, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00583-WBS-SCR. See generally Mot.

19   Suppress, ECF No. 73. He attaches excerpts of the deposition transcript to his motion and moves

20   to file those excerpts under seal.

21          “The Supreme Court has explained that openness enhances both the fairness of a criminal

22   trial and the appearance of fairness that is essential to public confidence in the system.” United

23   States v. Guerrero, 693 F.3d 990, 1000 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court,

24   478 U.S. 1, 8 (1986)). “Under the first amendment, the press and the public have a presumed

25   right of access to court proceedings and documents.” Oregonian Pub. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for

26   Dist. of Oregon, 920 F.2d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir. 1990). That right extends generally to pretrial

27   hearings on motions to suppress. See United States v. Brooklier, 685 F.2d 1162, 1170–71

28   (9th Cir. 1982). The First Amendment right to access “can be overcome ‘only by an overriding

                                                      1
        Case 2:23-cr-00320-KJM Document 76 Filed 08/15/24 Page 2 of 3


 1   interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly

 2   tailored to serve that interest.’” Guerrero, 693 F.3d at 1000 (quoting Press-Enter., 478 U.S. at 9).

 3          Federal courts also have recognized a common law presumption that documents filed in

 4   both civil and criminal cases will be open to the public. See San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S.

 5   Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999). “A party seeking to seal a judicial record can

 6   overcome this presumption only by showing a ‘compelling reason.’” United States v. Sleugh,

 7   896 F.3d 1007, 1013 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

 8   809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016)). An applicable protective order is not normally itself a

 9   “compelling reason” under that standard. See Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu,

10   447 F.3d 1172, 1183 (9th Cir. 2006).

11          Defendant contends nondisclosure is necessary in this case “to protect the confidential and

12   sensitive nature of the information contained in the documents.” Req. Seal at 2 (in camera). He

13   also contends the excerpts contain “sensitive financial and business information,” and he

14   contends his testimony was “extracted involuntarily and in violation of [his] constitutional rights

15   under the Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment.” Id. He does not support these assertions

16   with particular citations to the excerpts in question, with descriptions of the sensitive information

17   he seeks to protect from disclosure, or with an explanation of why disclosure would cause any

18   specific harm. Nor does he propose redactions or similar measures to obscure only particularly

19   sensitive or personal information. The court has reviewed the excerpts in question. They do not

20   include references to the Fourth or Fifth Amendments or objections along those lines, and a

21   preliminary review does not establish their disclosure would reveal obviously sensitive and

22   private information, such as, for example, account numbers or trade secrets.

23          Defendant’s generic assertions of privacy and constitutional rights do not support his

24   request. Nor does his invocation of the government’s identification of the transcript as

25   confidential. The request to seal is denied without prejudice to renewal. Any renewed request

26   must be filed within fourteen days and must be accompanied by an explanation of why

27   nondisclosure is appropriate under the tests summarized above. If no renewed request is filed,

28   defendant must file a copy of the exhibit in question on the public docket of this action.

                                                      2
     Case 2:23-cr-00320-KJM Document 76 Filed 08/15/24 Page 3 of 3


1        IT IS SO ORDERED.

2   DATED: August 14, 2024.

3




                                        3


File and source

File

76.pdf

Size

154,900 bytes

SHA-256

8c67f4c6218703c3c475bc4cb7b63715e29f59b4ba77de87f4053e92e6078d81

Our copy

76.pdf

Original

No public link identified.