In re United States, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67833

Government challenged two magistrate judge orders under 18 U.S.C. § 2705(b) governing nondisclosure sequencing.
First order invited Twitter to intervene as a respondent and file a notice on merits; second order required public, redacted copy of the application.
Magistrate Judge barred Twitter from disclosing subpoena details and sought public redaction; both orders were issued in March 2014.
Court held that § 2705(b) and public-access doctrine do not support inviting intervention or publishing a redacted copy of the nondisclosure application.
Court ultimately vacates both orders, grants the § 2705(b) nondisclosure application, and seals related records under Rule 6(e).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether inviting Twitter to intervene was authorized	Twitter (plaintiff) argues for intervention under statute and procedures.	Government contends § 2705(b) does not permit service-provider intervention on merits.	De novo review; invitation not required by statute, so vacated.
Whether the government’s nondisclosure application should be filed publicly with a redacted copy	Gvt. seeks public submission of redacted application.	Public availability of grand jury materials vs. secrecy; no right of access.	Public filing order and 6(e) sealing not required; redacted copy improper; but application sealed under 6(e).

United States v. Bowman, 496 F.3d 685 (D.C.Cir.2007) (Rule 58 applicability to appeal; jurisdictional context)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (limited jurisdiction; review requires proper basis)
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (U.S. 1976) (de novo review guidance for magistrate referrals)
In re U.S. for an Order Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d), 707 F.3d 283 (4th Cir.2013) (magistrate decisions under § 636(b)(3) reviewed de novo)
United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293 (D.C.Cir.1980) (Hubbard factors guiding sealing decisions)
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller, 493 F.3d 152 (D.C.Cir.2007) (no First Amendment right of access to grand jury materials)
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller, 438 F.3d 1138 (D.C.Cir.2006) (seals and secrecy in ongoing grand jury investigations)
Dow Jones & Co. v. United States, 142 F.3d 496 (D.C.Cir.1998) (secrecy of grand jury proceedings; preindictment context)
United States v. Nahas, 738 F.2d 487 (D.C.Cir.1984) (limited jurisdiction; magistrate referrals)
Judith Miller, 493 F.3d 152 (D.C.Cir.2007) (no First Amendment right of access to grand jury ancillary materials)