United States v. Stuart Seugasala, 670 F. App'x 641

Stuart Seugasala appealed a district court order; the district court later unsealed certain record items while his appeal was pending.
The district court has inherent authority to seal or unseal filings; the appeal had already been filed when the unsealing order issued.
The panel considered whether the district court retained jurisdiction to unseal records after a notice of appeal and whether the unsealed material remained confidential as to the United States.
The district court did not adjudicate the merits of the appeal or materially alter the appeal’s status when it unsealed the records.
The trial transcript and excerpts from a January 2 hearing showed Seugasala had already disclosed the information to the United States.
Because Seugasala voluntarily disclosed the information, the court concluded he waived any confidentiality protection for those record items.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court retained authority to unseal records after notice of appeal	District court lacked jurisdiction after notice of appeal; unsealing exceeded authority	District court retained limited authority to act on the record to aid appellate review	Court held district court retained authority to unseal because action did not materially alter appeal status and aided review
Whether voluntary disclosure waived confidentiality as to the United States	Seugasala argued the unsealed items remained protected	United States argued Seugasala had disclosed the same information, waiving protection	Court held Seugasala waived confidentiality by disclosing the information in transcripts/hearings
Whether unsealing improperly decided appellate merits	Seugasala alleged unsealing affected merits or appeal status	United States argued unsealing was limited to record management, not merits	Court held unsealing did not decide merits or materially alter appeal status
Whether further review of unsealing required given waiver	Seugasala sought reversal of unsealing based on confidentiality	United States relied on waiver to foreclose confidentiality claim	Court affirmed unsealing and declined to address other arguments because waiver resolved the issue

United States v. Shryock, 342 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2003) (district courts have inherent authority to seal or unseal filings)
Cal. Dep’t of Toxic Substances Control v. Commercial Realty Projects, Inc., 309 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2002) (notice-of-appeal rule does not strip district court of subject-matter jurisdiction; purpose is judicial economy)
In re Silberkraus (Dressler v. Seeley Co.), 336 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2003) (district court may act in ways that aid appellate review)
Mayweathers v. Newland, 258 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2001) (district court actions are permissible if they do not materially alter the appeal’s status)
Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Sw. Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2001) (limitations on district court activity after notice of appeal)
Murphy v. DirecTV, Inc., 724 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2013) (voluntary disclosure can waive confidentiality claims)
In re Pac. Pictures Corp., 679 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (voluntary disclosure to third parties generally destroys privilege)
Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2003) (express waiver occurs when privileged information is disclosed to third parties or made public)