Doe 1 v. McAleenan
- Beth Freeman
- 5:18-cv-02349
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Jane Doe 1 v. Chad Wolf, Judge DeMarchi granted motions to seal materials tied to a confidentiality-designation dispute.
The parties and the public’s access to the specified court filings were affected; the order addressed confidentiality designations and sealing, not the merits of the parties’ claims.
What happened
Jane Doe 1, et al. v. Chad Wolf, et al. involved requests to keep portions of briefing and supporting documents under seal in connection with defendants’ motion for reconsideration. The requests concerned whether defendants properly designated information as confidential under a protective order, not the merits of the claims or defenses.
The court applied the lower “good cause” standard because the materials were only indirectly related to the case’s merits. It found good cause to preserve the current situation while the reconsideration order remained subject to possible review, and granted the administrative motions to seal specified portions of the filings.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi entered the order on September 17, 2020. The order sealed highlighted portions of a declaration supporting defendants’ reconsideration motion and specified portions of the plaintiffs’ opposition.
The detailed version
- Doe 1 v. McAleenan · No. 5:18-cv-02349
- Beth Freeman
- Sept. 17, 2020
Background
In connection with defendants’ motion for reconsideration, the parties filed administrative motions asking the court to seal portions of their briefs and accompanying documents. The materials concerned a dispute over whether defendants had properly applied confidentiality designations under an amended protective order. The court stated that this discovery dispute did not address the merits of the parties’ claims or defenses.
Legal standard
Judicial records accompanying dispositive motions generally receive a strong presumption of public access, which can be overcome only by compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings. But the court explained that this presumption is less demanding for materials related only tangentially to the merits of a case. For such materials, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) requires a showing of “good cause.”
Defendants argued that publicly disclosing the proposed sealed material could harm national-security and law-enforcement interests, an assertion the parties disputed. The court also noted that its order on the reconsideration motion concerned the propriety of defendants’ confidentiality designations, and that the order was subject to review by the presiding judge. If review were sought, its resolution could affect whether the material should remain sealed.
Ruling
The court found good cause to seal the material in order to preserve the status quo and granted the administrative motions. The sealed material included highlighted portions of the declaration of Gabriel K. Poling supporting defendants’ motion for reconsideration and specified highlighted portions of plaintiffs’ opposition to that motion. The order did not decide the underlying claims or defenses.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.