N.D.Cal.: Some wiretap records are unsealed on request from press

The press sought unsealing of wiretapping related materials, and the parties are asked for their positions. The court orders partial release. United States v. Chow, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114802 (N.D.Cal. August 28, 2015):

Judge Breyer referred to the undersigned magistrate judge issues of whether certain documents filed under seal should remain under seal in whole or in part. See dkts. 791, 869. The United States proposed that certain documents should be filed with redactions, others should be filed unredacted in the public record, and others should remain under seal. The Court largely agrees with the United States’ proposals, based on compelling privacy interests and the statutory presumption that wiretap materials should remain under seal. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2517, 2518(8)(b). As discussed below, however, certain materials that the United States proposes to redact or leave sealed should be made public, and certain passages that the United States appears to have overlooked should be redacted. The parties are ORDERED to file redacted or public versions of their own filings consistent with this Order, no later than September 18, 2015. The Court will file a redacted version of its now-sealed July 9, 2015 Memorandum and Order, consistent with the United States’ recommendations as modified by this Order.¹

1. This Order relates to whether and to what extent certain documents previously filed under seal with leave of the Court must be unsealed based on the public’s First Amendment right of access to judicial proceedings. It has no bearing on whether other documents filed in the public record by Defendant Kwok Cheung Chow violated any court order, statute, or other obligation—an issue Judge Breyer Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searches has reserved until proceedings on the merits have concluded. See dkt. 899.