Advance Local Media, LLC v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections
918 F.3d 1161
| 11th Cir. | 2019Background
- Doyle Lee Hamm, a death-row inmate, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming Alabama’s lethal-injection protocol would violate the Eighth Amendment as applied to him given his compromised veins; expedited proceedings and in camera submissions occurred before his scheduled execution.
- Alabama provided its lethal-injection protocol to the district court under a protective order; the protocol was not formally docketed but was discussed in in camera hearings and relied upon in the court’s rulings on summary judgment and a preliminary injunction.
- After Hamm’s failed execution attempt and dismissal of the case, media organizations moved to intervene to unseal the protocol; the district court allowed intervention and ordered a redacted release of the protocol.
- Alabama appealed, arguing (1) the media’s intervention was untimely/improper and (2) the protocol was not a “judicial record” subject to the common-law right of access.
- The Eleventh Circuit held the protocol was a judicial record because it was submitted and relied upon to resolve substantive motions, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in unsealing a redacted version after balancing confidentiality and public-access interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hamm / Intervenors) | Defendant's Argument (Alabama) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the lethal-injection protocol is a "judicial record" subject to the common-law right of access | Protocol was submitted to and relied upon by the court in deciding substantive motions, so it is a judicial record | Protocol was not formally filed or docketed, so it is not a judicial record | Protocol is a judicial record because it was submitted, discussed, and integral to adjudication (following Newman) |
| Whether the common-law right of access was overcome (good cause balancing) | Public interest in execution procedures and transparency outweighs confidentiality; limited redactions suffice for security | State interest in confidentiality and security of execution procedures warrants sealing | District court properly balanced interests and permissibly unsealed a redacted protocol; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether press intervention to unseal records was timely and proper under Rule 24 | Intervention was timely given circumstances; press has standing and an interest impaired if records remain sealed | Intervention was untimely and prejudicial; press knew of the case earlier and could have intervened | Intervention was timely and not prejudicial under the four-factor test; intervention as of right (Rule 24(a)) or permissive (Rule 24(b)) was appropriate |
| Whether redaction can address the State’s security concerns | Limited redactions (identifying personnel/locations) protect security while allowing public access | Entire protocol should remain sealed to protect security and identities | Court may redact identifying/security-sensitive information; redaction resolves the State’s primary concern |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1978) (recognizes a general common-law right to inspect judicial records and documents)
- Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001) (distinguishes discovery filings from filings integral to judicial resolution for access analysis)
- FTC v. AbbVie Prods., LLC, 713 F.3d 54 (11th Cir. 2013) (applies balancing approach to determine when discovery-related materials become judicial records)
- Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796 (11th Cir. 1983) (materials not formally filed may still become part of court proceedings and thus subject to public access)
- Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 717 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 2013) (emphasizes public-trial and public-record presumptions and need for rigorous justification to close elements of judicial process)