840 F. Supp. 2d 370
D.D.C.2012Background
- This is a sealed-proceedings matter in the D.D.C. concerning Mr. Schuelke’s investigation and Report relating to Senator Stevens’ prosecution.
- On Feb. 8, 2012, the Court denied two motions to permanently seal the Report and ordered public filing with subject-attorneys’ addenda by March 15, 2012.
- Edward Sullivan, one of the subject attorneys, moved to stay the Feb. 8 order pending appeal and to seal his filings.
- Senator Stevens’ attorneys opposed Sullivan’s stay and Sullivan filed a reply; Sullivan sought to file his notice of appeal and stay motion under seal.
- The Court held the Report must be disclosed and denied Sullivan’s stay motion, while granting sealing in part and denying sealing in part.
- Pleadings related to Schuelke’s Report will be unsealed when the Report is published on March 15, 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on merits for the stay | Sullivan asserts serious legal questions favoring a stay. | Court previously rejected merits; standard not met. | Stay denied; insufficient likelihood of success. |
| Irreparable harm to Sullivan | Publication would irreparably harm Sullivan’s reputation and associational interests. | Publication exonerates Sullivan; harm speculative and minimal. | Irreparable harm not shown; stay denied. |
| Harm to other interested parties | Stay would harm Senator Stevens’s family, staff, and associates who lack access to the Report. | Disclosure serves public interest; harms are outweighed by transparency. | Balance tips toward disclosure; no stay. |
| Public interest in disclosure | Public has right to know investigative results and to monitor prosecutorial conduct. | Public interest favors timely disclosure and accountability. | Public interest strongly favors release; stay denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (Supreme Court, 2009) (four-factor stay standard)
- Wash. Metro. Area Transit Comm’n v. Holiday Tours, 559 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (sliding-scale approach to stay factors)
- Cuomo v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 772 F.2d 972 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (movant must justify extraordinary remedy; four-factor test)
- Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (sliding-scale approach explicit)
- Davis Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (stay factors adjudication; standard considerations)
- In re North, 16 F.3d 1234 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (public release of IC report; factors favor disclosure)
- Providence Journal Co. v. FBI, 595 F.2d 889 (1st Cir. 1979) (serious legal questions; time-lost confidentiality concern)