Santiago v. Johnson

Opinion

Paul Santiago, Case No. 2:21-cv-00896-APG-NJK

Petitioner, ORDER v.

Calvin Johnson, et. al, [ECF Nos. 80, 81] Respondents.

The respondents filed two motions to seal in relation to the state court record they filed with this court. The first motion asks that certain exhibits filed by the petitioner in his state post- conviction proceeding be sealed. ECF No. 80. These exhibits include medical and psychiatric records of a minor victim and the petitioner’s employment file. The second motion asks that a transcript of a state post-conviction evidentiary hearing be sealed because it contains the unredacted full name of the minor in several places. ECF No. 81. The petitioner has not filed an opposition to either motion. As to the first motion, I find that compelling reasons exist to have these documents filed under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). As to the second motion, the respondents subsequently filed a properly redacted transcript. ECF No. 82. Based on that version of the transcript, it appears that at least some, if not all, of the pages in the earlier-filed transcript that contain the victim’s name have already been removed. See ECF No. 57-7 at 67, 86, 91, 101, 109, 120, 138. However, out of an abundance of caution, I will order the earlier-filed transcript to be filed under seal, as well. I THEREFORE ORDER that the respondents’ motions to seal [ECF Nos. 80, 81] are GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to seal the following docket entries: ECF Nos. 39- } 1, 40-1, 41-1, 42-1, 43-1, 46-1, 47-1, 48-1, 49-1, 50-1, and 57-7. Dated: September 24, 2024. GA U.S. District Judge Andrew P. Gordon