The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Worse Than Sealed Court Records: Sealed Motions to Seal
A judge rightly speaks out against them.
From Wednesday's decision by District Judge Miranda M. Du, in Barron-Aguilar v. Olsen (D. Nev.):
Respondents' sealed motion for leave to file exhibit under seal … addresses Exhibit C, the Nevada Department of Correction's ("NDOC") COVID-19 Protocol and Statistics report, submitted in support of Respondents' opposition to Petitioner Tito Barron-Aguilar's emergency motion for release. Respondents contend that NDOC's report contains confidential information regarding prison procedures and protocols and sensitive medical information, which could potentially be used to compromise safety and security at NDOC facilities.
Having reviewed and considered the matter in accordance with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' directives set forth in Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu (9th Cir. 2006), and its progeny, the Court finds that a compelling need to protect safety and security at NDOC facilities outweighs the public interest in open access to court records. Respondents have met their burden of establishing compelling reasons for Exhibit C to remain sealed.
The Court further notes, however, that the Motion to Seal was erroneously filed under seal when the Motion to Seal itself does not contain any confidential information—only the attached exhibit(s) presents confidential information. If a motion to seal itself contains confidential information, the moving party may file a redacted motion to seal on the public docket and an unredacted motion under seal with the sealed exhibits. However, this practice is disfavored as litigants should attempt to meet their burden under Kamakana without specific references to confidential information. Parties must file confidential information separately under seal as a "Sealed Exhibit(s)" and link the sealed exhibit(s) to the motion to seal….
Indeed.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
But what of the sealed motions to seal motions to seal? And even worse: The sealed motions to seal motions to seal motions to seal.
It's seals all the way down.
In this case is should be a motion for leave to file a motion for leave to file exhibits under seal under seal.
Your comment is making me loopy. Infinitely so.
And the sealed motions in opposition to sealed motions to seal.
How do you oppose something that is sealed?
With a giant can opener?
A sealed filing isn't necessarily ex parte: absent a separate justification, the other parties to a case get to see it too.
Paranoia...
Just because you are paranoid, that doesn't mean that no-one is out to get you.
Conversely, just because someone is out to get you, the doesn't mean that you aren't paranoid.
Why? I'm sure the basis for sealing is sometimes self-evident. But if it's supposed to be the exception done only on the basis of a specific need, shouldn't we encourage parties seeking sealing to give a detailed outline of why it's appropriate?
Sealed request for sealing?
Sounds like an attempt to run around the Streisand Effect.
Sealed requests to filed sealed requests for sealing.