(HC) Doe v. Andrews

Opinion

1 MAcItCinHgE ULnEi tBedE CStKatWesI ATHtto rney 2 MICHELLE RODRIGUEZ Assistant United States Attorney 3 501 I Street, Suite 10-100 Sacramento, CA 95814 4 Telephone: (916) 554-2700

5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 JOHN DOE, CASE NO. 1:25-CV-00506-SAB-HC

10 Petitioner, ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS AS SET FORTH 11 v. IN RESPONDENTS’ NOTICE

12 TONYA ANDREWS, et al., (ECF No. 15)

13 Respondents.

14 15 16 17 Pursuant to Local Rule 141(b), and based on the representations contained in the Respondents’ 18 Request to Seal, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondents’ Bowen Declaration Exhibits in 19 Support of Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss, pertaining to Doe, and the Respondents’ Request to Seal 20 shall be SEALED until further order of this Court. 21 It is FURTHER ORDERED that electronic access to the sealed documents shall be limited to the 22 Respondents and counsel for the Petitioner. 23 The Court has considered the factors set forth in Oregonian Publishing Co. v. U.S. District Court 24 for the District of Oregon, 920 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1990). The Court finds that, for the reasons stated in 25 the Respondents’ Request, sealing the Respondents’ Request and the Bowen Declaration Exhibits in 26 Support of Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss serves a compelling interest. The Court further finds that, in 27 the absence of closure, the compelling interests identified by the Respondents would be harmed. In light 28 of the public filing of its Notice to Seal, the Court further finds that there are no additional alternatives to 1 || sealing the Respondents’ Request and Bowen Declaration Exhibits in Support of Respondents’ Motion 2 || to Dismiss that would adequately protect the compelling interests identified by the Respondents. 3 || IT IS SO ORDERED. A (ee Dated: _ July 10, 2025 OF 5 STANLEY A. BOONE ‘ United States Magistrate Judge

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28