Doe v. Lerner
688 F. App'x 49
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Appellants Richard Lerner and Frederick Oberlander (pro se attorneys) moved to unseal documents in a civil contempt matter alleging dissemination of sealed materials; the district court partially denied that motion on June 21, 2016.
- The contested materials included John Doe’s Pre-Sentence Report (PSR), documents sourced from the PSR, a government letter describing threats to Doe, and filings sealed in related proceedings.
- The district court unsealed parts of the docket that it deemed necessary to understand the contempt proceeding but kept certain documents sealed to protect Doe’s safety and the government’s interest in safeguarding cooperator identities.
- Appellants appealed the partial denial of unsealing; they did not adequately challenge the denial of reconsideration and thus waived review of that order.
- The Second Circuit treated the partial denial as an appealable collateral order and reviewed the district court’s sealing decision for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the partial denial of the unsealing motion is appealable | Lerner/Oberlander argued they could appeal the sealing order | Government/Respondent argued sealing decision was final for collateral-order purposes | Court held the partial denial is appealable under the collateral-order doctrine |
| Whether the First Amendment right of access applied to sealed documents | Appellants argued the public/press had a First Amendment right to access the documents | Respondents argued documents were not necessary to understand the contempt merits and thus not protected | Court held the First Amendment did not apply because documents were not necessary to understand the contempt proceeding |
| Whether the common-law right of access required unsealing | Appellants argued common-law access attached and favored disclosure | Respondents argued common-law right is outweighed by countervailing interests (safety, protection of cooperators) | Court held common-law right did not mandate disclosure given strong secrecy interests |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in sealing specific items (e.g., Govt letter / PSR-derived docs) | Appellants challenged sealing of specific documents (doc 24, govt letter) | Respondents emphasized Doe’s safety and related protective interests; district court unsealed materials necessary for the record | Court affirmed: sealing was narrowly tailored, appropriate, and not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 1998) (issues not sufficiently argued are waived on appeal)
- In re Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, New York, Inc., 745 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2014) (discussing final-judgment rule and exceptions)
- Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463 (U.S. 1978) (definition of final decision for appellate jurisdiction)
- Schwartz v. City of New York, 57 F.3d 236 (2d Cir. 1995) (elements of the collateral-order doctrine)
- Newsday LLC v. Cnty. of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2013) (First Amendment and common-law rights of access to judicial documents)
- United States v. Erie Cnty., New York, 763 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2014) (exercise of jurisdiction over denial of motion to unseal)
- United States v. Cojab, 996 F.2d 1404 (2d Cir. 1993) (addressing appealability of sealing/unsealing orders)