Doe

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OCT 21 2016

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50344

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00768-LAB-1 v.

DOE, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted September 1, 2016 Pasadena, California

Before: TASHIMA, WARDLAW, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Doe appeals the district court’s denial of the parties’ joint motion to seal an

order denying a further reduction in sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v DOE 15-50344

OCT 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

BYBEE, Circuit Judge, Dissenting

I respectfully dissent. In denying the motion to seal the order, the district

court did not abuse its discretion…

Dissenting

I respectfully dissent. In denying the motion to seal the order, the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying the “[in]correct legal rule” or applying the legal standard in a way that was “(1) illogical, (2) implausible, or (3) without support in inferences that may be drawn from facts in the record.” United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1261-62 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (citation omitted).

The district court stated both the common law standard from Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), and the First Amendment test from Oregonian Publishing Co. v. United States District Court for District of Oregon, 920 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1990), and therefore did not apply the incorrect legal rule. Although the district court did not clearly separate its analysis of the First Amendment and common law rights regarding public access to judicial documents, the district court applied both tests and did not abuse its discretion.

The district court did not reach an outcome that was illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that could be drawn from facts in the record. The district court rejected sealing the order because it…

MEMORANDUM *

Doe appeals the district court’s denial of the parties’ joint motion to seal an order denying a further reduction in sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.