Matthew v. United States

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: July 1, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-01664
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JACOB MATTHEW, Case No.: 3:25-cv-01664-JES-JLB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 13 v. DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL THE RECORD 14 UNITED STATES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SAN 15 DIEGO PASSPORT AGENCY, and 16 MARCO RUBIO, in his official capacity as Secretary of State, 17 Defendants. 18 19

20 Plaintiff brings the instant action against Defendants, seeking to compel Defendants 21 to issue a U.S. passport without the requirement of providing a social security number 22 (“SSN”). On June 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to seal the record. For the reasons stated 23 herein, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s motion. 24 I. LEGAL STANDARD 25 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 26 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 27 Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 28 1 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 2 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz 3 v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption 4 of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 5 particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 6 public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 7 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 8 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 9 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 10 presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130. The showing required to meet this burden 11 depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than 12 tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. When 13 the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling 14 reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096-98. When the underlying motion does not surpass 15 the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. 16 To show good cause, the moving party must make a “particularized showing ... with 17 respect to any individual document,” San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U. S. Dist. Ct., N. 18 Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999), that “specific prejudice or harm will 19 result if no protective order is granted,” Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd, 307 F.3d 1206, 1210– 20 11 (9th Cir. 2002). “Simply mentioning a general category of privilege, without any further 21 elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, does not satisfy the burden.” 22 Kamakama, 447 F.3d at 1184. Likewise, “[b]road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by 23 specific examples or articulated reasoning,” are also insufficient. Phillips, 307 F.3d at 24 1211. Further, if the movant wishes to seal an entire document, it must show that the 25 possibility of prejudice or harm would not be defeated by redacting only the sensitive 26 portions of said document. See In re Roman Cath. Archbishop, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 27 2011); Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137. 28 / / / l Il. DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff's instant motion to seal involves documents implicating the “compelling 3 ||reasons” standard. “[A]n action’s complaint, and its associated exhibits, are more than 4 || tangentially related to the merits of the case.” JBS Packerland, Inc. v. Phillips Cattle Co., 5 || No. 24-CV-01299-BAS-MSB, 2024 WL 4427794 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2024) (citing Ctr. for 6 || Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098). Here, Plaintiff moves to seal the entire record, including 7 ||the complaint and its associated exhibits. Thus, sealing or redacting portions of such 8 documents will require “compelling reasons.” 9 Plaintiff has not provided the Court with compelling reasons to seal the entire record. 10 || In support of his motion, Plaintiff generally cites privacy rights but fails to explain how 11 || prejudice or harm will result from public access to the complaint and most of its associated 12 || exhibits. Indeed, he claims the documents contain trust details that, “if disclosed, would 13 ||}expose trust assets and beneficiaries to statutory obligations, breaching [his] fiduciary 14 || duty.” The Court can only discern, with respect to Exhibits 7 and 11, two areas of sensitive 15 || and identifying information. In Exhibit 7, Plaintiff appears to cite confidential trust account 16 |}information, and in Exhibit 11, Plaintiff appears to cite a “social security number” of his 17 |/estate. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to seal only in respect to 18 || Exhibit 7 and 11. 19 Ht. CONCLUSION 20 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff's Motion to 21 the Record. The Court ORDERS Exhibits 7 and 11 to remain under seal. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 34 Dated: July 1, 2025 “4 wa Se 4) 25 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. %6 United States District Judge 27 28