United States v. Stuart Seugasala

MEMORANDUM

Stuart Seugasala appeals the district court’s order unsealing certain record items. We affirm.

1. The district court had jurisdiction to unseal the records at issue, and that jurisdiction was not lost by the filing of an appeal. District courts have inherent discretionary power to seal or unseal record items. See United States v. Shryock, 342 F.3d 948, 983 (9th Cir. 2003); Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(d) (“The court may order that a filing be made under seal ... [and] may later unseal the filing.”). Our general rule, often stated as the district court “losing jurisdiction” upon the filing of a notice of appeal, is a judge-made doctrine developed for the purpose of maximizing judicial economy. See Cal. Dep’t of Toxic Substances Control v. Commercial Realty Projects, Inc., 309 F.3d 1113, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002). It does not actually “strip[ ] the district court of [its] subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. at 1121 . The district court may still take “action [that] aids us in our review,” Dre ssler v. Seeley Co. (In re Silberkraus), 336 F.3d 864, 869 (9th Cir. 2003), as long as the action does not “materially alter the status of the case on appeal,” Mayweathers v. Newland, 258 F.3d…