Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
26-CV-848 JLS (DEB)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ISMOILJON SULTONKULOV,
Petitioner,
v.
JEREMY CASEY, Warden at Imperial
Regional Detention Center, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-CV-848 JLS (DEB)
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S
MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS
UNDER SEAL
(ECF No. 9)
Presently before the Court is Petitioner Ismoiljon Sultonkulov’s Motion to File
Documents Under Seal (“Mot.,” ECF No. 9). 	Having carefully considered Petitioner’s
arguments, the information Petitioner seeks to seal, and the relevant law, the Court
GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion.
I. 	Legal Standard
“[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public
records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” 	Nixon v. Warner
Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). 	“Unless a particular court record is one
‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”
Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v.
State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption
of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed,
Case 3:26-cv-00848-JLS-DEB Document 13 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

2
26-CV-848 JLS (DEB)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the
public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler
Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d
1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)).
A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong
presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130. The showing required to meet this burden
depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than
tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. When
the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling
reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does not surpass
the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id.
Under the compelling reasons standard, “the party seeking protection bears the
burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no [protection] is granted.”
Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002). 	“In general,
‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify
sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper
purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal,
circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” 	Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179
(quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records
may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will
not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136).
The decision to seal documents is “one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court”
upon consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.” Nixon,
435 U.S. at 599.
II. 	Analysis
Petitioner seeks leave to file under seal the lodged unredacted Exhibit E to his habeas
petition. Mot. at 1. Petitioner asserts that the documents contain confidential information
related to the substance of his application for asylum, as well as his mothers. 	Id. at 2.
Case 3:26-cv-00848-JLS-DEB Document 13 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

3
26-CV-848 JLS (DEB)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
These portions of the Petition are “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case,”
therefore, the compelling reasons standard applies. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102.
Petitioner has expressed concerns if this information were public. 	Mot. at 2. 	The Court
finds that these requests are narrowly tailored and sufficiently meet the compelling reasons
standard. See, e.g., Ndandu v. Noem, et al., No. 25-cv-2939 RBM (MSB), ECF No. 2 at 3,
6 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025) (granting motion to seal concerning documents related to
asylum and CAT protection because they had the potential to identify him and subject him
to physical harm if made public); Doe v. Becerra, 787 F. Supp. 3d 1083, 1095–96 (E.D.
Cal. 2025) (granting motion to seal any information related to petitioner’s asylum
application due to the sensitive nature of the allegations).
III. 	Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion to File Documents
Under Seal (ECF No. 9). The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file under seal the
lodged unredacted document submitted by Petitioner: Exhibit E to the Petition (ECF No.
10).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 19, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00848-JLS-DEB Document 13 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3