(HC) Doe v. Andrews

Opinion

1 KAcIMtinBgE URnLitYed A S. tSaAteNs ACHttoErZne y 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-00680-KES-SKO

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

12 U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL BONDI, ET AL.,

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 Romero Declaration Exhibits (ECF 10-1) 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 Romero Declaration Exhibits (ECF 26 10-1) in Support of Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss serves a compelling interest. 27 The Court further finds that, in the absence of closure, the compelling interests identified by the 28 Respondents would be harmed. In light of the public filing of its Notice to Seal, the Court further finds 1 that there are no additional alternatives to sealing the Respondents’ Request and Romero Declaration 2 Exhibits (ECF 10-1) in Support of Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss that would adequately protect the 3 compelling interests identified by the Respondents. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

6 Dated: July 21, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . 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