LEONIE BRINKEMA, District Judge
This matter having come before the Court on the Government's Motion to Seal Documents pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 49(E) and for good cause shown, the Court finds:
1. The government seeks to file certain documents under seal.
2. Sealing of these materials is necessary because disclosure of the materials to be filed would prematurely identify and possibly jeopardize a witness.
3. The Court has considered procedures other than sealing, but none would suffice to protect the information subject to sealing.
4. The Court has the inherent power to seal materials submitted to it.See United States v. Wuagneux, 683 F.2d 1343, 1351 (11th Cir. 1982);State of Arizona v. Maypenny, 672 F.2d 761, 765 (9th Cir. 1982); Times Mirror Company v. United States, 873 F.2d 1210 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Shea v. Gabriel, 520 F.2d 879 (1st Cir. 1975); United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293 (D.C. Cir. 1980); In re Braughton, 520 F.2d 765, 766 (9th Cir. 1975). "The trial court has supervisory power over its own records and may, in its discretion, seal documents if the public's right of access is outweighed by competing interests." In re Knight Pub. Co., 743 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 1984).
5. The Government requests that the pertinent materials will be sealed until trial in this case at which point they will automatically be unsealed. The government will file a motion to unseal the documents before the automatic unsealing if circumstances permit ealier unsealing.
NOW THEREFORE,
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The government's Motion to Seal is GRANTED.
2. The documents filed under seal will remain under seal until the trial in this case, at which time the pertinent materials will automatically be unsealed. The government will file a motion to unseal before the items are set to be unsealed automatically if circumstances warrant earlier unsealing.
SO ORDERED.