United States v. Loo
2:24-cr-00072
| W.D. Wash. | Aug 5, 2025Background
- The United States government filed an unopposed motion to seal and redact admitted trial exhibits in the criminal case against Steven T. Loo after a jury verdict.
- The government argued certain exhibits contained unredacted sensitive information, including financial account numbers, tax identification numbers, and home addresses.
- The government asserted that both parties agreed these exhibits should remain sealed to protect privacy.
- Many of the sealed exhibits involved voluminous financial records, and summary exhibit charts (which do not contain sensitive information) had already been made public.
- The Court reviewed the records and determined confidential financial and tax information pervaded the sealed documents, making redaction or less restrictive alternatives impractical.
- The motion was unopposed, and the Court officially granted the government’s request to seal and redact various listed trial exhibits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exhibits with sensitive | Sealing/redaction protects privacy; no less | No opposition filed | Court grants motion to seal and redact exhibits |
| information should remain sealed | restrictive alternative exists | ||
| Whether public access rights are | Compelling privacy interests override general | No opposition filed | Court finds strong privacy interests justify sealing |
| outweighed by need for secrecy | presumption of access | ||
| Whether district/local rules | Motion complies with district orders and rules | No opposition filed | Court affirms compliance and grants motion |
| require/permit sealing of certain | Court’s General/Local Rules and Fed. R. Crim. P. | ||
| exhibits | allow sealing and redaction in these circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (explains strong presumption in favor of public access to court records)
- Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1978) (establishes the general right to inspect and copy judicial records)
- Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (discusses presumption of access to court records)