In re Coffman, 766 F.3d 1246

Coffman was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500g+ of methamphetamine; redacted indictment was used at trial as Court Exhibit 2.
The district court redacted the indictment prior to jury deliberations and later destroyed the record under local rules after a direct appeal and § 2255 proceedings.
Coffman later sought an order establishing the lost/destroyed record under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1734, 1735, to obtain a copy of the exhibit.
The district court denied the application, and Coffman sought a writ of mandamus in this court.
We deny the mandamus petition because Coffman failed to allege a need for the record in any pending or contemplated legal proceeding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1734/1735 authorizes relief without a pending need for the record.	Coffman seeks establishment of the record regardless of pending need.	Coffman lacks a demonstrated need for the record; § 1734/1735 require a legal proceeding needing the record.	No; Coffman failed to show a pending or contemplated need.
Whether Coffman is an “interested person” under § 1734/b.	Coffman is interested in the redacted indictment.	Coffman lacks a reasonable interest to justify a hearing under § 1734.	Not an “interested person” with a qualifying need for a hearing.
Whether Coffman may invoke § 1734 to obtain a hearing when the record is destroyed.	Statutory text supports a hearing under § 1734(b).	Text and context require a need for the record in relation to a legal proceeding.	Section 1734 requires a need tied to a pending or contemplated proceeding.
Whether the statutory context and title support § 1734 as a rule of evidence.	§ 1734 is a mechanism to reconstruct documentary evidence.	§ 1734 is limited and requires a legal purpose; not for idle curiosity.	Context supports § 1734 as a rule of evidence for a permissible purpose.

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (U.S. 2004) (interprets 'interested person' in § 1782 to require a reasonable interest)
Am. Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 U.S. 63 (U.S. 1982) (statutory interpretation using the text and structure)
In re Moody, 739 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2014) (mandamus review highly deferential; drastic remedy)
United States v. Worthen, 98 F.3d 480 (9th Cir. 1996) (§ 1734 applicable to missing records needed for other proceedings)
In re Burgess, 28 F.3d 1208 (4th Cir. 1994) (suggests use of § 1734 to support Rule 60(b) motion when record missing)
United States v. Scully, 546 F.2d 255 (9th Cir. 1976) (discusses authentication of lost records under § 1734/1735)