Doe 1 v. McAleenan

Background

The court reviewed the parties’ proposed redactions to its March 15, 2021 order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. The parties also sought to seal the materials they submitted concerning the redaction dispute.

Legal standard

The court applied the “compelling reasons” standard because the material was more than tangentially related to the merits of the case. Under that standard, sealing requires a strong justification. The court also stated that sealing requests must be narrowly tailored and comply with the district’s local rule.

Rulings

For defendants’ proposed redactions in Exhibit B, the court denied the request as to the passage at page 4, lines 16–17, concerning an issued “not clear” result and the labeling of the case as a security threat. The court explained that this information had previously been made public in the plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and was consistent with an earlier court order. The court granted the request as to the remaining highlighted portions because it found those portions sealable for the reasons stated in the earlier sealing order.

The court treated an identical document submitted under another filing number the same way. It granted the plaintiffs’ proposed redactions to the highlighted portions and treated the identical duplicate document the same way. In its final order, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to file portions of Exhibit B under seal and directed defendants to separately file a redacted version of the order consistent with the ruling.

Judge

The order was signed by Beth Labson Freeman, United States District Judge.