However, a document may remain from the public's view only if “specific, on the record findings are made demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is
narrowly tailored to serve that interest.”
In re N.Y. Times Co., 828 F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir.1987) (emphasis added) (internal quotation and citation omitted). In
Amodeo I, the Second Circuit stated that “we think that it is proper for a district court, after weighing competing interests, to edit and redact a judicial document in order to allow access to appropriate portions of the document,”
Amodeo I, 44 F.3d at 147; U.S. v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 513 F.3d 1085, 1149 (9th Cir.2008) (“Provisions for narrow tailoring may include later release of transcripts, or redacted transcripts.”);
Kasza v. Whitman, 325 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir.2003) (“we have already accepted the government's position that disclosure of protected information in these cases risks significant harm to national security.... Public release of redacted material is an appropriate response.”);
Jones v. Avidyne Corp., No. 06 Civ. 1656, , at *1 (D.Or. Sept. 24, 2010) (“Instead, [Judge Stewart] implemented a more narrowly tailored remedy in order to strike the appropriate balance between the interests of the public and the interests of the parties. After reviewing the transcript line by line, Judge Stewart redacted the transcript as to certain matters but not others .... she found that a redacted version of the transcript was sufficient to maintain the confidentiality of Avidyne's trade secrets, research and development, and other materials subject to a standing protective order.”).
Cf. U.S. v. Steinger, 626 F.Supp.2d 1231, 1237 (S.D.Fla.2009) (rejecting the possibility of unsealing redacted portions of sealed documents and transcripts because it would be inadequate to protect the government's interest in the ongoing investigation, and because if redacted to eliminate all references, “the redactions would be so heavy as to make the released versions incomprehensible and unintelligible.”).