Laura Cyphert v. Scotts Miracle-Gro Company
831 F.3d 765
6th Cir.2016Background
- Scotts pleaded guilty in the S.D. Ohio criminal case to a misdemeanor for selling bird seed treated with unapproved pesticides; a PSR and accompanying objection letters (government’s objections and Scotts’s response) were prepared before sentencing.
- The probation officer submitted a PSR addendum to the court that attached the parties’ objection letters; the court conducted an in‑camera review and then sentenced pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement.
- Plaintiffs in a related California consumer class action sought the two objection letters from the Ohio court for use in class‑certification and merits proceedings; the Probation Office had treated the PSR/addendum and related materials as confidential under S.D. Ohio Crim. R. 32.1(k).
- The district court denied Plaintiffs’ request, holding the objection letters carry the same presumption of confidentiality as the PSR and may be disclosed only upon a showing of “special need.”
- On appeal Plaintiffs argued the letters should be presumptively public under the First Amendment and the common‑law right of access; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, applying the special‑need standard and finding Plaintiffs failed to show the information was unavailable from other sources.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether presentence objection letters are subject to First Amendment or common‑law presumption of access | Objections are like sentencing memoranda and thus presumptively public | Objections are integral to the PSR process and entitled to the PSR’s confidentiality | Held: Objections are sufficiently related to PSR process and receive the PSR confidentiality treatment (no First Amendment or common‑law presumption of openness) |
| If confidential, what standard governs disclosure | Plaintiffs: public‑access standards (burden on party opposing disclosure) | Scotts: special‑need standard for PSRs (burden on requester) | Held: Special‑need standard applies to objections; requester must show some special need and unavailability from other sources |
| Whether Plaintiffs demonstrated special need to overcome confidentiality | Plaintiffs: three sentences in the letters are critical and not available elsewhere; necessary for class certification | Scotts: same info is reflected in sentencing transcript and accessible via other discovery and experts; hearsay/unreliable | Held: Plaintiffs failed to show special need or unavailability; denial affirmed |
| Whether district court had authority to adjudicate Probation Office records request | Plaintiffs: court may rule on access requests | Scotts: (implicit) Probation custody issue per In re Siler | Held: Local rule (S.D. Ohio Crim. R. 32.2) vested sentencing judge authority to resolve disclosure request; Siler distinguishable |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Siler, 571 F.3d 604 (distinguishing authority to adjudicate PSR disclosure and discussing PSR confidentiality)
- U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Julian, 486 U.S. 1 (establishing special‑need standard for disclosure of presentence materials)
- United States v. Huckaby, 43 F.3d 135 (PSRs not subject to First Amendment access; confidentiality rationales)
- United States v. Corbitt, 879 F.2d 224 (policy reasons supporting nondisclosure of PSRs)
- In re Hearst Newspapers, LLC, 641 F.3d 168 (First Amendment access to sentencing‑related filings / sentencing memoranda)