Opinion
No. 2:16-cr-108-GEB
11-21-2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOE NERSESYAN, Defendant.
ORDER
On November 18, 2016, Defendant Joe Nersesyan emailed chambers a proposed order and a copy of Exhibit B to Defendant's pending motion to suppress; the referenced Exhibit B has been docketed as ECF No. 35-2. Defendant also filed a "NOTICE OF REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENT" on November 18, 2016, in which he states he submitted to chambers via e-mail "a copy of the unredacted Exhibit B." Not. of Req. to Seal, 1:26-27, ECF No. 38. However, what Defendant submitted to chambers is the same redacted version of Exhibit B that is attached to the suppression motion he filed on November 17, 2016.
Defendant requests in his publicly filed NOTICE OF REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENT, judicial approval of his request "to seal Exhibit B and . . . to file [on the public docket] a redacted copy of the exhibit . . ." Id. at 1:26-27. Although Defendant states he desires to seal Exhibit B, the essence of the relief Defendant seeks is to have this exhibit stricken from the docket, and that he be granted leave to file a redacted Exhibit B that contains redactions authorized by Rule 49.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the redacted telephone numbers in the Exhibit B he filed on the public docket.
Since Defendant indicates that Exhibit B (ECF No. 35-2) was "improvidently filed," the Clerk of the Court shall permanently remove and delete ECF No. 35-2 to Defendant's motion to suppress. See CBS, Inc. v. United States Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 765 F.2d 823, 825-26 (9th Cir. 1985) (ordering "improvidently filed" document "removed . . . from the [docket]"). Further, Defendant has seven days leave from the date on which this Order is filed to file on the public docket the redacted Exhibit B he has requested to file.
Since this ruling obviates the need for decision on Defendant's sealing request, the documents Defendant submitted via email in conjunction with his sealing request are deemed returned to Defendant. See United States v. Baez-Alcaino, 718 F. Supp. 1503, 1506 (M.D. Fla. 1989) (explaining that when a judge decides in camera that a document has not been shown appropriate for sealing, the document should be returned to the submitting party, who may then decide what to do).
CONCLUSION
For the stated reasons:
1. the Clerk of the Court shall permanently remove and delete Exhibit B to Defendant's motion to suppress docketed as ECF No. 35-2;
2. and Defendant has seven days leave from the date on
which this Order is filed to file the redacted Exhibit B he has requested to file.Dated: November 21, 2016
/s/_________
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge