12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Court to “for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriaterelief,” including a protective order. F
P. 16(d). The Government does not seek to sealotherwise public court records, but rather to protect otherwise non-public information produced to thedefense in discovery. Protecting this information requires “good cause.”
See San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. District Court
, 187 F.3d 1095, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (applying the “good cause” standard toevaluate a civil protective order under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure);
c.f. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th2006) (“[W]hen a district courtgrants a protective order to seal documents during discovery, ‘it already has determined that ‘good cause’exists to protect this information from being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discoveryagainst the need for confidentiality.’ [
Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp.
, 307 F.3d1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)]).In this case, the Government seeks to protect material that will likely have little to no impact ondefendant ARREDONDO’s defense, consisting of information regarding closed and ongoinginvestigations of other parties, as well as financial records and personal identifier information of other parties. As to the latter category, the release of this information could result in identity theft or harassment. In fact, the District of Arizona has already recognized the importance of concealing personal identifier information in court documents. District of Arizona General Order 08-11. This protective order would prevent that same sort of private information from being disseminated beyondthose persons necessary to defendant ARREDONDO’s defense, thereby limiting – if not eliminating – the risks associated with its public release.
Mehl v. Blanas
, 241 F.R.D. 653, 659-60 (N.D. Cal. 2007)(imposing a protective order for personal identifier information in part to protect persons from the possibility of identity theft).As to the former category – information regarding ongoing and closed investigations of other parties, including information regarding sources for those investigations – the dissemination of thatmaterial beyond a limited set of persons could impede criminal investigations, compromise witnesssafety, and deter potential witnesses from providing information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
United States v. Smith
, 776 F.2d 1104, 1114 (3d Cir. 1985) (recognizing that releasing the3
Case 2:12-cr-01055-FJM Document 16 Filed 05/31/12 Page 3 of 8