Opinion
CR21-0045-JCC
07-19-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SUMIT GARG, Defendant.
ORDER
JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's motion for return of passport and extension of time (Dkt. No. 960) and his motions to seal (Dkt. Nos. 955, 961), along with the Government's motion for an extension (Dkt. No. 937). Upon consideration of the motions and the relevant record, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion for return of passport (Dkt. No. 960), GRANTS both requests for an extension of time (Dkt. Nos. 937, 960), and GRANTS Defendant's motions to seal (Dkt. Nos. 955, 961) for the reasons stated herein.
Defendant first moves this Court to order the Government to return his “unexpired passport.” (Dkt. No. 960 at 1.) However, the Government asserts it is not in possession of any such passport. (Dkt. No. 966 at 1-2.) And nothing in the record indicates that the Government has obtained Defendant's passport. Accordingly, Defendant's request for return of his passport (Dkt. No. 960) is DENIED.
In the same motion (Dkt. No. 960), Defendant requests an extension of the deadline to submit his reply in support of his motion for return of property (Dkt. No. 935). The Government does not oppose. (See Dkt. No. 966 at 2.) Accordingly, Defendant's request is GRANTED. Defendant has until August 15, 2024, to submit his reply. The Clerk is DIRECTED to re-note Docket Number 935 to August 15, 2024.
The Government previously requested an extension to the deadline to respond to Defendant's motion for return of property. (See Dkt. No. 937.) That motion is also GRANTED.
Finally, Defendant moves to seal certain documents, including Exhibit A of his sentencing memorandum (Dkt. No. 956), Exhibit B of his objections to the presentence report (Dkt. No. 962), and Exhibits 1 and 6 of his reply in support of his motion for a new trial (id.). (See Dkt. Nos. 955, 961.) While the public has a common law right to inspect and copy public records, including those from judicial proceedings, these rights are not absolute. They must yield when (1) sealing a document serves a compelling interest, (2) that is substantially likely to be harmed if the document is not sealed, and (3) there are no less restrictive alternatives for protecting the interest. See United States v. Doe, 870 F.3d 991, 998 (9th Cir. 2017). Given the nature of the information contained in the materials at issue, these criteria are met here. Accordingly, the motions to seal (Dkt. Nos. 955, 961) are GRANTED and the Clerk is DIRECTED to maintain Docket Numbers 956 and 962 under seal.