United States v. James Guerrero
693 F.3d 990
9th Cir.2012Background
- Guerrero and Sabían are indicted for first-degree murder and related offenses, with the Government filing a death-penalty notice.
- Guerrero moved to seal his pretrial competency proceedings, attaching a competency and neuropsychological evaluation.
- The district court granted a competency examination but denied Guerrero’s motion to seal the related proceedings and documents.
- Guerrero sought interlocutory review; Sabían opposed; the district court unsealed the competency hearing and documents, with protective ordering for admissibility.
- This is an interlocutory appeal challenging the sealing denial; the majority dismisses for lack of jurisdiction, not addressing merits.
- The district court vacated the competency hearing during the appeal process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral order review applies | Guerrero argues collateral order jurisdiction exists for sealing orders. | Sabían contends no collateral order jurisdiction over sealing orders. | No collateral order jurisdiction; appeal dismissed. |
| Whether mandamus relief is appropriate | Guerrero seeks mandamus to compel sealing under collateral framework. | No mandamus relief unless clear error; district court denial not clearly erroneous. | No mandamus relief; appeal dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (collateral order review not justified for privilege-related disclosure in civil actions)
- Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 (Sup. Ct. 2006) (collateral order test factors; prong three requires unreviewability)
- Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463 (Sup. Ct. 1978) (collateral order doctrine general framework)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (experience and logic test for access rights)
- In re Sealed Case, 237 F.3d 657 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (sealing is an issue separate from merits for collateral review)
- Islamic Shura Council of S. Cal. v. Fed. Bur. of Invest., 635 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (distinguishes FOIA unsealing from competency-privacy context)
- Oregonian Publ. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 920 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1990) (First Amendment access rights applied to court proceedings)
- Times Mirror Co. v. United States, 873 F.2d 1210 (9th Cir. 1989) (privacy considerations in access to judicial documents)
- United States v. Brooklier, 685 F.2d 1162 (9th Cir. 1982) (standing to appeal sealing orders; public access)
- In re McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., 288 F.3d 369 (9th Cir. 2002) (standing and mandamus considerations for access disputes)